quote Originally posted by fieroguru: Hmmmm, you must be referring to someone who hasn't actually ran that particular clutch on a dyno proven setup and encountered slippage well below the rated 400 lb/ft rating.

maybe you got a bad clutch? I ran the stage 2+ behind my cammed & ported 4.9L setup, which was well over 300 lb/ft, absolutely no slippage in any gear at WOT. My friend up in GA runs the stage 2+ behind a built up 3800Sc that is close to 400 HP, again with no slippage....

i agree with you 100%, the 3+ is a better clutch. it bridges the gap between the stage 3 and the stage 2+ from a driveability standpoint, and has awesome holding capacity, it just costs more than the stage 2+

I am going to try something new with the HTOB connection. I want to use the stock fiero clutch master cylinder and wanted an inexpensive way to couple the two. I still need to implement a bleeder with this set up, so it isn't 100% finished yet, but I will probably figure out the bleeder at a later point. It shouldn't be too hard with all the available connections at Napa. This is what I came up with so far. Please tell me if you think this will work or if you see any problems with it.

I used a 1 foot long, 1/4" brake line ($2.50).


Also 3 o-rings from a kit. I happend to have the kit, but if you don't, you can buy it for about $20. Or try finding a parts store that sells individual o-rings from these kits. I used 3 for redundancy and because there was room for 3. Kit # ATD-3601, o-ring # R-03. Use vasoline to lubricate the o-rings, bore and pipe when assembling.





I had to drill the center ridge open ever so slightly, about 0.020", to fit the pipe through. I used a 1/4" drill bit by hand. It doesn't take much to get through, but you need to open it enough that the pipe slides through with little resistance. None of the sealing surfaces are changed here, the ridge is for an internal check valve that should not be needed and will be deleted. The valve is there for production and service reasons and is only activated when the factory lines are disconnected. It's to keep air out of the system when the lines are open. The spring can be reused to hold outward pressure on the pipe. The check valve is the part I will be deleting.


I cut the flare off one end of the brake line, then beveled it with a bench grinder and wire wheel. This should prevent damage to the o-rings latter. The flare on the other end will help keep the 3 o-rings in place.


Stack the o-rings in one at a time, using vasoline to lubricate them and hold them in place untill the pipe is installed. You can't see them in this pic because they aren't in yet, but they go in the small end.


Then slide the pipe through from the back end and install the factory spring and rear plug. Leaving the check valve out. Lubricate with vasoline.




Finally, slide the line nut on and flare the end.


I'm debating if I should fill this end with epoxy or not?

[This message has been edited by 1fatcat (edited 02-13-2011).]

Here is a simple cut a way sketch I made to make it easier to visualize. Any thoughts? I'm thinking bleeding it may require a specific procedure.

Just curious, How is the interaction going with Spec?
Jim

quote Originally posted by fieroguru: If you are using a pressure plate similar to the stock G6 one, then the flywheel clutch surface should be around 1.65" from the bellhousing. If you are using a more typical fiero style pressure plate, then the flywheel clutch surface can be up to 2.0" from the bellhousing face (this is the approximate location of the Archie F40 flywheel spacer places the clutch face)

This is incorrect or cutting it very close according to my measurements if I understand you correctly. The clutch disc hub ultimately determines how far the flywheel should be above the bellhousing surface of the block. My Camaro flywheel was turned down to nearly the same height as the G6 flywheel clutch surface. You can't measure the G6 pressure plate next to the Fiero pressure plate easily because the G6 pressure plate utilizes a stepped mounting surface which sits about .250" above the flywheel friction surface.

I am using a Fiero Muncie 4 spd pressure plate. If my flywheel friction surface was 2" above the bellhousing of the engine instead of ~1.65" I believe my pressure plate would be preloaded by the throwout bearing and would not allow the clutch to engage. There is also the needed cushion to permit the release flanges to rise as the disc wears without being preloaded by the throwout bearing over time.

Check the numbers again and make sure.

When this is settled, I would love arrive at a dimensioned drawing and technical data which would set a baseline for future installs. This could include:

* crankshaft to engine/transmission mounting surface offset
* thickness of flywheel back to friction surface
* height of pp from friction surface to fingers
* flywheel brand/PN
* pp selection/brand and PN
* clutch disk selection/brand and PN
* relative position of disk splines to transmission input shaft splines

I realize that there are several solutions to the above, but there are some critical dimensions for all solutoions. My thoughts are that these are: transmission/engine block mating surface to pp release fingers and alignment of disk splines to input shaft splines.

I bought most of my parts used from someone who did an F40/SBC install with a complete Archie Master kit and then pulled it out to put an automatic in. What I received as part of the package was a custom Spec PP/solid disk (both fried), an aluminum spacer with a brand new friction surface. This spacer is rather thick, because it must also account for the Archie adapter plate for the SBC. I suppose that I could use the spacer milled to the required dimensions. I was amazed to find out that the disc and friction surface are only 9" in diameter. I did not purchase the flywheel or SBC adapter so I can not provide complete dimensions, but as best as I can determine, the install used a standard Archie SBC flywheel and adapter. My spacer is 1.4" thick and the Spec PP is 1.8" from friction surface to fingers.

What is the difference and dimensions between/for a 4SP/V6 5SP/V6 PP?
Joseph, what disc are you using?

Thanks
Jim

quote Originally posted by bowrapennocks: When this is settled, I would love arrive at a dimensioned drawing and technical data which would set a baseline for future installs. This could include: * crankshaft to engine/transmission mounting surface offset * thickness of flywheel back to friction surface * height of pp from friction surface to fingers * flywheel brand/PN * pp selection/brand and PN * clutch disk selection/brand and PN * relative position of disk splines to transmission input shaft splines I realize that there are several solutions to the above, but there are some critical dimensions for all solutoions. My thoughts are that these are: transmission/engine block mating surface to pp release fingers and alignment of disk splines to input shaft splines. I bought most of my parts used from someone who did an F40/SBC install with a complete Archie Master kit and then pulled it out to put an automatic in. What I received as part of the package was a custom Spec PP/solid disk (both fried), an aluminum spacer with a brand new friction surface. This spacer is rather thick, because it must also account for the Archie adapter plate for the SBC. I suppose that I could use the spacer milled to the required dimensions. I was amazed to find out that the disc and friction surface are only 9" in diameter. I did not purchase the flywheel or SBC adapter so I can not provide complete dimensions, but as best as I can determine, the install used a standard Archie SBC flywheel and adapter. My spacer is 1.4" thick and the Spec PP is 1.8" from friction surface to fingers. What is the difference and dimensions between/for a 4SP/V6 5SP/V6 PP? Joseph, what disc are you using? Thanks Jim

I'm using a stock G6 clutch hub that was religned with Kevlar. Nearly all of the dimensions you mentioned have been documented at least for the G6 parts and that's all you need to plan or check your parts against. The stack height was also listed. As long as you are within those limits everything should work out fine. Since the G6 ran most of its spring action in the dualmass flywheel, the clutch disc is nearly a solid hub as the tiny springs in it offer very little movement to dampen engagement. Still the clutch engages like it's a sprung hub without the dualmass flywheel. I believe the 5 spd pplate is a little thinner than the 4 spd.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 02-01-2011).]

Joseph,
Thanks. Did you find any need to limit travel or otherwise use a adjustable banjo on the clutch master cylinder?
Jim

quote Originally posted by Joseph Upson: This is incorrect or cutting it very close according to my measurements if I understand you correctly. The clutch disc hub ultimately determines how far the flywheel should be above the bellhousing surface of the block. My Camaro flywheel was turned down to nearly the same height as the G6 flywheel clutch surface. You can't measure the G6 pressure plate next to the Fiero pressure plate easily because the G6 pressure plate utilizes a stepped mounting surface which sits about .250" above the flywheel friction surface. I am using a Fiero Muncie 4 spd pressure plate. If my flywheel friction surface was 2" above the bellhousing of the engine instead of ~1.65" I believe my pressure plate would be preloaded by the throwout bearing and would not allow the clutch to engage. There is also the needed cushion to permit the release flanges to rise as the disc wears without being preloaded by the throwout bearing over time. Check the numbers again and make sure.

There are far more F40 conversions running the clutch surface approximately 2" from the bellhousing face, than at your depth... so I am confident it can be done.

From the example above with a SBC F40 spacer plate measured at about 1.4". A typical SBC flywheel (and Archie's) sticks out about 1.6" from the bellhousing surface, add a 1" adapter plate and this distance drops to .6". Add in the 1.4" from the Archie SBC kit and you are at 2"...
Now a stock 2.8 flywheel is .81" to .83" from the bellhousing face and I had to add a HTOB spacer about .2" thick when I ran a 92-94 HTOB getrag behing my SBC fiero using an Archie kit... after I over extended it on the first push (this is also why several SBC swaps switch to a longer slave pushrod with the fiero transmissions).

From another source, I know the 2.8/3800/4.9 F40 spacer plate is about 1.2" thick... So add it to the .8" flywheels used in those combos and you are at 2" again.

While I know the G6 pressure plate is of the raised style, the critical dimension to compare is the distance from the crank flange face on the backside of the flywheel to the pressure plate fingers (clutch installed and pressure plate bolted down) for the stock G6 setup and then compare it to a setup using a stock style fiero pressure plate, I suspect there is a difference and the G6 setup is overall deeper, even with the flywheel clutch face being closer to the engine. The other contributor is the measurement of the fully compressed HTOB. There have been several reports of them collapsing further once the check ball was removed or the assembly hooked up to the bleeder and released, so maybe the fully compressed dimension wasn't actually fully compressed.

[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 02-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by bowrapennocks: Joseph, Thanks. Did you find any need to limit travel or otherwise use a adjustable banjo on the clutch master cylinder? Jim

No it's flush mounted with stock linkage.

quote Originally posted by fieroguru: The other contributor is the measurement of the fully compressed HTOB. There have been several reports of them collapsing further once the check ball was removed or the assembly hooked up to the bleeder and released, so maybe the fully compressed dimension wasn't actually fully compressed.

I would have to say you nailed it! That is exactly what I think happened. The measurements were wrong, and spec designed a clutch using these incorrect measurements. The HTOB was never ACTUALLY fully compressed when the measurements were taken.

I will be updating this thread soon with pics and a solution to the whole clutch dilema.

Great,

Thanks for taking the time to provide all of this great data.
Jim

just saying the 5 spd 282 and 6 spd f40 are no different, and the F23 isnt far off

282 5th gear: 0.71:1

f40 6th gear: 0.72:1

F23 5th gear: 0.69:1

I know its more gears but its just more shifting

[This message has been edited by dylc316 (edited 02-02-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dylc316: just saying the 5 spd 282 and 6 spd f40 are no different, and the F23 isnt far off 282 5th gear: 0.71:1 f40 6th gear: 0.72:1 F23 5th gear: 0.69:1 I know its more gears but its just more shifting

Doesn't the F23 have 4.10 final drive?

I edited this post to keep anyone else from doing it wrong.

[This message has been edited by 1fatcat (edited 03-24-2011).]

You probably already know this, but the flywheel bolts need some room for the effects of heat related expansion of the flywheel. If the bolts are a snug fit there maybe a risk of sheering if the flywheel gets hot enough. The flywheel bolts for the G6 have rubber/plastic sleeves on them if that gives you some idea. This certainly offers an even easier approach to addressing the flywheel for the 60 degree motors using the Camaro 3.4 flywheel with the F40.

I would be lying if I said it hadn't crossed my mind. I'm just not sure if I need to be too concerned about it or not? How much movement is there?

quote Originally posted by 1fatcat: I would be lying if I said it hadn't crossed my mind. I'm just not sure if I need to be too concerned about it or not? How much movement is there?

If you have the tolerance pretty tight the smallest amount of expansion could stress the bolts, as the pressure will be higher than normal against the bolt threads instead of mainly the underside of the bolt head. The flywheel can get pretty hot when you consider they sometimes develop hot spots that are almost impossible to machine out. To be on the safe side you should check with a manufacturer as I've never seen a tight fit in that location. I have seen a few exhaust manifold bolts sheered off and they've had more tolerance to work with.

If you are using such a low tolerance fit to center the flywheel without any assistance from the flange centric built into the crankshaft you are taking a very, very, very big risk. That will potentially add even more stress to the bolts if there is any imbalance that would normally be transmitted directly to the crankshaft centric.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 02-08-2011).]

Thats where the problem lies, is with the crank centering flange. The spacers (flexplates) I added were enought to move the flywheel past the centering flange, so to keep everything centered I added these bolts collors. Without the bolt collors, the flywheel has a good bit of movement off center...due to it spaced too far away from the crank for the centering flange to enguage it.

Nice work and thanks for the postings. Are you going to use the Spec clutch that you purchased?

I am still planning my install and have found a 53K mile 3800 S/C locally. It has been sitting on the junkyards shelf for a while. Unfortunately, this junkyard hacks all wire harnesses. The only way I can get a harness from them is to take it off myself, when they first get a car in.
Jim

quote Originally posted by 1fatcat: Thats where the problem lies, is with the crank centering flange. The spacers (flexplates) I added were enought to move the flywheel past the centering flange, so to keep everything centered I added these bolts collors. Without the bolt collors, the flywheel has a good bit of movement off center...due to it spaced too far away from the crank for the centering flange to enguage it.

In this case I would find another way to address the problem. There is too much depending on the bolts beyond what they were intended to do in this application. Small amounts of imbalance will be magnified greatly in the case of the flywheel rotating at higher rpm and the smallest amount of runout will create an exceptional amount of stress on those bolts. You should really reconsider this, I'm a risk taker but I wouldn't even think about doing this. That flywheel needs to be centered by the crank. If it comes off the crank due to bolt failure it will probably chew up the bellhousing among other things.

You would be much better off having a proper crankshaft spacer made for the 3800. Here is an off the shelf spacer for the LS(x) engines and notice it provides the flange to center the flywheel. I used one of these for my LS4 Flexplate/spacer/flywheel combo.

quote Originally posted by bowrapennocks: Nice work and thanks for the postings. Are you going to use the Spec clutch that you purchased? I am still planning my install and have found a 53K mile 3800 S/C locally. It has been sitting on the junkyards shelf for a while. Unfortunately, this junkyard hacks all wire harnesses. The only way I can get a harness from them is to take it off myself, when they first get a car in. Jim

I was planning on using the spec clutch, but I may now need to rethink everything with the flywheel? Which in turn may effect the clutch choise? What an expensive hobby this is. Don't let me turn you away from a spec clutch though, Jeremy had a solution for me and my pig headedness turned it down. I may have to take him back up on the offer if it's still available?

As for a harness, you should be able to use the harness and PCM from any car that came with an L67. For example, if your engine is from a GTP, you can use a harness from a GTP, SSEi, Olds LSS, Buick Riviera, ect. Anything that had the L67. Your only using a hand full of the wiring harness, the engine control sensors, ignition module and the wires that feed them. A lot of the wiring is deleted. Any car that came with an L67 is going to have the sensor connectors you need. The only acception I can think of is, some cars had a factory boost guage and some didn't. But unless you plan on running a digital boost guage, this should not be an issue. Most guys will run a pnematic boost guage if they even use one at all. The cars that were factory equiped with a boost guage had one extra MAP sensor & connector on the harness and used it for boost guage readings, but I can't say for sure, the cars that had no boost guage may still have had the connector for the extra MAP sensor? At any rate, thats all a moot point if you use a pneumatic boost guage or none at all.

You can basically use any 3800 harness, there are very few differences in the NA ones.

That's pretty much it. Even the n/a harnesses had almost all the same connectors. I think the boost guage and boost bypass valve connectors were missing, maybe a couple others too? But even an n/a harness would have 90% of what you need, and you can use the deleted wires to make the other needed circuits. Color coding pretty much goes out the window when you do this, however. If you can find a cheap L67 harness, go with it vs the n/a harness. The PCM you will want from an L67 car for sure.

You can get just about any pcm if you plan on having it reprogrammed.

I want to start this post by saying thank you to all who have showed interest (helps the moral boost) and pitched in with words of wisdom, believe me, I really appreciate all the advise I can get. I do need to stir the pot of wisdom a bit though. As far as my flywheel mounting method, I'm wondering if I should ditch it or take a chance and see what happens?

I have found that the combined eight bolts give me a shear strength of about 37,680 psi. I have absolutely no idea how to convert this number to foot pounds of rotational force? I don't think there is a way?

What I'm wondering is, because the bolt collors are only 0.630" long, and half of that is inside the spacers (which still enguage the crank centering flange) do I really need to redue my flywheel set up, or will this method hold 300-350 foot pounds of torque?

[This message has been edited by 1fatcat (edited 02-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 1fatcat: I want to start this post by saying thank you to all who have showed interest (helps the moral boost) and pitched in with words of wisdom, believe me, I really appreciate all the advise I can get. I do need to stir the pot of wisdom a bit though. As far as my flywheel mounting method, I'm wondering if I should ditch it or take a chance and see what happens? I have found that the combined eight bolts give me a shear strength of about 37,680 psi. I have absolutely no idea how to convert this number to foot pounds of rotational force? I don't think there is a way? What I'm wondering is, because the bolt collors are only 0.630" long, and half of that is inside the spacers (which still enguage the crank centering flange) do I really need to redue my flywheel set up, or will this method hold 300-350 foot pounds of torque?

My concern is that there is a likely additional and unnatural force being applied to the bolts in this application that could possibly make fatigue life significant. Any rotational force due to imbalance, perceptable or not will have to be contained by the bolts now. With the flywheel properly seated on the flange they would not experience this force. Over time this could cause the bolts to loosen and break.

Here is a centrifugal force calculator you can experiment with to get an idea of how significant an imbalance in the flywheel as little as .5 oz can become. Use angular speed and lbf for the centrifugal force which will equal the same in lbs alone.

http://www.calctool.org/CAL...ewtonian/centrifugal

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 02-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 1fatcat: the bolt collors are

Collars.

Do the flywheel right.

http://www.google.com/searc...q=flywheel+explosion

Edit: Here's a particularly good example of what can go wrong: http://mycomputerninja.com/?p=478#

http://www.clubcobra.com/fo...owthread.php?t=80533

Heck, this one's on a F@#$ing VESPA and still really screwed things up: http://www.flickr.com/photo...0234/in/photostream/

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-10-2011).]

OK. That convinced me. I edited the post to help contain my insanity.

Thanks for keeping up with this and making all of your posts. It seems that the best solution other than a custom flywheel, would be to do a spacer on the front of the flywheel as Archie does. From what I recall in your posts, the spacer needs to be only about .25". In looking at the Archie spacer that I have, milling it down to .25" would not work because there would not be enough meat on the aluminum spacer piece to provide room for the friction plate bolts. I wonder what Archie sells for the 3800? Does he require that the Camaro flywheel be made thinner first? or could a steel spacer be made that is the diameter of the flywheel?

Good luck and I know you will find a solution.
Jim

quote Originally posted by bowrapennocks: I wonder what Archie sells for the 3800? Does he require that the Camaro flywheel be made thinner first? or could a steel spacer be made that is the diameter of the flywheel?

From what I have gathered the 2.8/4.9/3800 Archie flywheel spacer is the same part since all these applications use a flywheel in the .8" thick range. That is why he specifies that if your combo was setup to run a getrag (or other fiero transmission), then his kit will work.

Mill the camaro flywheel down to the normal thickness for a getrag installation (.81 to .83" range) and then use the Archie spacer with a fiero style pressure plate... there was one for sale from a 4.9 in the mall (1.2" thick)...

[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 02-10-2011).]

I don't really even want to use my flywheel anymore, after seeing the scary videos. I might cough up some custom flywheel money. With the way it's positioned in a fiero, a cast iron flywheel could rip right through the passenger compartment and I've already weakened mine by machining and drilling on it.

Edit: Does anyone recommend a good flywheel company? Perferably one that can build it AND match balance it to my flexplate?

[This message has been edited by 1fatcat (edited 02-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 1fatcat: Edit: Does anyone recommend a good flywheel company? Perferably one that can build it AND match balance it to my flexplate?

I know you do not want to hear it...

Spec will do custom flywheels and they already offer one in the .8" thickness variety properly balanced to the 3800SC (the 3800SC I am working on has one). See how much they will charge to take that current design and make it thicker....

Thats what I'm doing. I have an email sent to spec about making a custom flywheel with the proper balance and depth. I told him I would not expect this for free, and I'm willing to pay for it. I did mention that their current flywheel for this application is not properly balanced for the L67. We'll see what happens...

Sorry to bring up this flywheel contraption again, but I think something was missed and wanted to make sure it was brought to everyones attention before completely dismissing the idea. The one thing that I felt would be worth some thought is the ring gear of the flex plate. It is serving as a means of keeping the flywheel on center with the crank too. I never really even seen it as such until just a few minutes ago, and now I'm all excited thinking that maybe...just maybe, this set up could work safely?

The flex plate is securely and properly seated to the crank's center flange, keeping the flex plate true. The ring gear is welded to the flexplate. The flywheel sits inside the ring gear.

Could I count on the bolts & collars AND the ring gear to hold the neutrally balanced flywheel in place? I could weld a few spots evenly around the ring gear and flywheel for more strength. Thoughts?

[This message has been edited by 1fatcat (edited 02-16-2011).]

Anyone? Any thoughts? Even if they're bad thoughts?

In looking at all of the posts, it seems that there are two good solutions for the flywheel problem

1. Go the Archie way and use a Camaro flywheel setup for a 3800/Getrag machined down to .82 or so and then use the Archie spacer at about .8". This provides the same offset as the Dual Masss flywheel. I may go this way, as I already have an Archie spacer from a SBC install that just needs to be milled down. The Archie spacer I have has a friction surface of only 9" in diameter. Near as I can tell the friction surface is from Spec.

2. Have a custom flywheel made. I am curious if you made any traction on that idea. I like this idea best, but I bet it is expensive.

Then the next issue is to get a clutch/pp. Will the Spec clutch that you have work? If you look at Joseph Upsons pictures at the bginning of his posts on DIY 6Sp, you will notice that the real G6 disc has a pretty good offset for where the spline goes in the center of the hub. For your Spec clutch, what is the clutch diameter? and what is the height from friction surface to release fingers? Was spec just trying to sell everyone a stock 3800 PP + a disk with the G6 splines? Also, Archie does sell a clutch/PP for this application. Has anybody looked into this and know what it costs? Whose clutch does he use?

Jim