|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-12-2010, 12:57 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 1,278
|
Re: Lighter Flywheel - Good or Bad?
IMHO, 3-400 is way to slow for idle. As Larry said, you are not going to get much splash lube at that speed. I idle mine at around 7-800, about the same as a modern.
|
07-12-2010, 01:32 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,470
|
Re: Lighter Flywheel - Good or Bad?
Quote:
__________________
I know a lot of things; I just can't remember them all. 1928 CCPU 82-A 1931 Roadster 40-B Dlx (Canadian) |
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
07-12-2010, 02:07 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 1,278
|
Re: Lighter Flywheel - Good or Bad?
The counter-weights add a lot of weight to the assembly. This is from an article Jim Brierely wrote on the FAST website.
Is there a down-side to lightening the Model A flywheel? No! There is none, with the possible exception of being able to idle your engine down to ridiculously low RPM’s with a very light flywheel, especially if you have installed a high performance cam. (The Model B cam is not such a cam.) The benefits far outweigh any down-side. You will get faster acceleration, quicker shifting and possibly better fuel milage although it would be so slight it wouldn’t be noticed. I also think a light wheel is easier on the engine’s main bearings. The full article is at http://www.hotforhotfours.com/flywheels.htm |
07-12-2010, 03:39 PM | #24 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washoe Valley, NV
Posts: 13
|
Re: Lighter Flywheel - Good or Bad?
I machined off weight for some of the reasons noted above, but find the best advantage is: easier to lug around when out of the A
... |
|
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|