31 replies to this topic

[Exmantaa]

Don't wine, you started all this CW sh*t...

[Dominique]

I'll stick with the new 8 counterweight B207R crank :

The difference in weight of a 4 CW  LSJ and the 8 CW  shafts from the new delivered B207R is within the range of 3 ounces. 

Weight of the crank is 37.2 lbs.

[FLD]

Here's a random idea....

Why not knife edge the 8CW crank and have a halfway house?

 

ETA: This assumes the forgedness of the 4CW crank is not too important.

Edited by FLD, 13 January 2014 - 09:40 AM.

[Dominique]

Here's a random idea....

Why not knife edge the 8CW crank and have a halfway house?

 

ETA: This assumes the forgedness of the 4CW crank is not too important.

I found Rob's VX with balancer delete and lighter flywheel not easy to drive due to the drop in revs as soon as throttle was lifted. (on public roads) 

Depending on how much weight would be taken off, knifing the edges would make it a track-only car imo.

 

Not sure if I understand the last assumption correct. 

I couldn't find information that the 8CW would be a cast shaft, and lookin at the round shapes of the CWs makes me think its forged. 

[Exmantaa]

Rob has a 5.8kg flywheel fitted and you opted for the even lighter (4.2 kg?)ttv version...

[smiley]

Rob has a 5.8kg flywheel fitted and you opted for the even lighter (4.2 kg?)ttv version...

 

Hmmmmm.......

Does it help if i leave my balancers in? (as i have the same ttv flywheel)

[vocky]

you soon get used to the quicker throttle response with the balancer delete and light weight flywheel   

 

it does seem odd at first, especially if you jump from a standard engine to one which likes to rev 

[Dominique]

you soon get used to the quicker throttle response with the balancer delete and light weight flywheel   

 

it does seem odd at first, especially if you jump from a standard engine to one which likes to rev 

 

I might give it an other go then. 

Indeed I stepped from an engine with standard internals into Robs.

 

The idea was not to bother about the balancers as the engine rev limit will be set at 7500-ish. 

[vocky]

engine at 7500rpm gives 15000 rpm of balancer shafts 

[Bargi]

you soon get used to the quicker throttle response with the balancer delete and light weight flywheel      it does seem odd at first, especially if you jump from a standard engine to one which likes to rev 

  I might give it an other go then.  Indeed I stepped from an engine with standard internals into Robs.   The idea was not to bother about the balancers as the engine rev limit will be set at 7500-ish. 

I went from standard 2.2 setup to SC with balancer delete and lightened flywheel and found it no different. Tried another car with same setup before to make sure and just as easy in traffic. You only really notice it when you break traction and catches you out how quickly it climbs to redline

[Exmantaa]

He stepped from a lazy 2.2 NA into a Harrop blown, lightened 2.0 animal...

[Dominique]

engine at 7500rpm gives 15000 rpm of balancer shafts 

You reckon the balancers will scream louder than the supercharger than?   .

 

Serious, the GM rpm vs. failure chart shows balancer delete or neutral shafts from, euh... 7500  . damn.

I'll have to put the limiter on 7499 than. 

 

Again serious, has someone had failure at 7500 with the balancers?  I was planning to keep them in against vibrations.

 

@ Exmantaa, I wouldn't say my NA was lazy, for an NA. 

 

 

@ Bargi, thx for your reply.  Makes me reconsidering my choice really.  Would there be a huge difference in rev. drop between 2.2 long stroke and 2.0 square?