[AMC-list] Crank flange of 290 vs 4.0 vs 304

[Nick ALFANO <71amx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

You have a couple different scenarios working here.  Providing you are using a 72 and later 304, the balance issue is pretty much the only thing you need to address when trying to use an 82 258 flywheel.  For the 290 and pre-72 304s, you will also have the diameter and depth of the crank flange to deal with.  Those engines have a borg-warner flat surface crank with a small diameter center hole.  The 72 and later engines had Torque Flight style flange that was stepped and much larger in diameter even though it might have had a stick pilot bushing in it.   The back side of the 82 flywheel is going to be larger than the early style looking for that stepped ring in the crank to center off of.  Typically, when we use a later style trans or flywheel set up on an early style engine, we machine out the crank and insert an adapter so there is no spacing issues.  You can accomplish this without machining the crank with a slightly different
 crank adapter and no machining but then you also have to make a trans to engine spacer to make sure you have the correct alignment and end play in your trans and starter.

Hope that makes sense.

Nick
 Alfano Performance
4849-76 st.
Kenosha, WI. 53142
262-308-1302
262-942-8271 after 6pm central and weekends 


Message: 2
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:18:14 -0700
From: Jim Blair <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-list] Crank flange of 290 vs 4.0 vs 304
Message-ID: <SNT117-W1E5B8203E29AA9F540234ACD00@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I'm looking to put an AX 15 in my 82 Honcho and Isabelle's Rebel. Anything special needed to swap a 4.0 flywheel to the 290 and 304 other than rebalance?
                        
_________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com