Jeep Strokers

Go back and reread my comments on cwt and the distance the cwt is from the crank centerline. Grasp the physics and then move the thought process to a heavier flywheel where the weight is further from the crank centerline. In the most basic form look at the cwt and the length of a lever.

The heavier crank offers little comparatively in flywheel effect as the added mass is so close to the crank centerline.

AMC/Chrysler did quite well with several different cwt`s of cranks. Funny how the 4.2 is legendary for it`s low end but it came with a couple different cwt`s of cranks. In any OEM form I would never call the 4.2 a road or race engine despite what crank it had.

I would be more interested in knowing if AMC/Chrysler had different weight flywheels over the years. A subject that I have never seen touched upon. Perhaps a venue we should be paying attention to but haven`t.

A big o'l torque converter full of oil weighs more than a flywheel and pressure plate, a manual WILL accelerate/decelerate much faster than an auto, years of circle track racing have proven this!

I believe that all of the big (late 232, 258 and V8) flywheels are of very similar weight, if any are lighter the 4.0 is it because of the cut outs for the CPS, the inertia ring on the back (engine side) can be machined off to lighten them up, I've done this to six's in the past and the 360 in my Rambler is also lightened, also took as much off the face side as possible, left just enough to hold the ring gear and the pressure plate even hangs over the sides!

I was going to go with a scat crank but I just found a decent looking 5477 on ebay for 190 shipped.