Lightweight SBC flywheel...benefits?

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Since I seem to build my car at a rate that is best measured in geologic time rather than with a calendar, I have started planning my future 5 speed swap now. I have a Borg Warner T-5 (3 of them!) and I plan to use it in the Olds behind my 350 Chevy 2 piece seal engine. I was thinking about using a lightweight flywheel to cut back on parasitic losses, but am unsure of the benefits outweigh the costs. I figure I have several flywheel choices (153 tooth). 1 would be a standard weight flywheel, next would be the lightweight GM flywheel used in the L69 Camaro/Firebird, lastly there is an aluminum flywheel with a steel friction surface. I am wondering if there are significant enough benefits to any of these on a relatively mild 350. Your thoughts are welcome.


As an aside, part of my design philosophy with this car is to improve performance and fuel economy without sacrificing driveability by improving overall efficiency. This is why the flywheel is intriguing as it would not significantly degrade idle quality or low end torque.

 

[2000.malibu.ls]

http://www.uucmotorwerks.com/flywheel/h ... _works.htm

http://www.se-r.net/engine/light_flywheels.html

 

[megaladon6]

ahh just drill it yourself. use the idiot with the eclipse as a guide.

 

[megaladon6]

knowing your philosophy on some things, i'd go with the L69 f-wheel. this way you could get it at the junkyard.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Well, the L69 flywheel would probably be the direction I take as it isn't $480 like the one I looked at in an old Summit catalog. Efficiency is just one of those things I like to think about a lot. If I ever build a new shortblock, I will probably look into lighter pistons and see if anyone makes a good, street aluminum rod that isn't priced too high as I am curious as to what effect the reduction in weight would have on fuel efficiency and power. I am always trying to balance the triumvirate of evil: power vs. fuel economy vs. cost.