L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody - Page 2 - Performance Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Sunday, June 15, 2008 1:10 PM
can someone post up a pic of the 8 bolt 2.0L flywheel aswell as the stock thickness, and diameter. also is the 2.OL internally balanced or does it get a weight like the 3800 flywheel.

just curious cause this could be a good thing for 3800 swaps to get a nice light weight flywheel since the 3800 uses a 8 bolt not 6 and the only light wieght ones for it are camero which need machining or a custom which are pricy.


JBO since July 30, 2001

Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:15 PM
2.0 is internally balanced

also in a cobalt , i think you would need to keep the spacer on a 2.2 or 2.4 to keep the trans located properly and use the 2.0 motor mount






Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:40 PM
DaFlyinSkwir(LS61) /PJ/ OEM+ wrote:

gmanz24 wrote:

pj your quick to yell at people in your own thread about staying on topic so lets not be a hypocrite here..
let me start over for ryan



RyZ96 wrote:

This is mostly for the squirl because I know he is attempting a swap similar to this.
But I need to know how different the clutch/flywheel/ slave cylinder/throwout bearings are between the F23/L61 and the F35/LSJ?

I have an ION redline and want to do a 2.2 built bottom end, keeping the lsj head and f35 trans.. I know everything will bolt together and I know I need a 2.2 crank out of a 05+ cobalt/ion with the 56x reluctor wheel on it. and I also know the flywheel bolt pattern is different

But I need to know what else is needed for the clutch to work properly??

anyone help?


ok..

DaFlyinSkwirl(LS61) /PJ/ OEM+ wrote:

the clutch setups (flywheel + clutch) are NON interchangable between the 2.2 and 2.0. The 2.2 and 2.0 clutches have different outer diameters so the F23 clutch material would be too small on the F35 flywheel, and F35 clutch material would be too large on the F23 flywheel. Also, the outer bolts are no where NEAR lining up. If you go with a clutch setup it has to be entirely 2.2 or entirely 2.0.. not to mention they only bolt to their assigned cranks.. so really the crank choice is what dictates the clutch choice.

so far as transmissions, either will suffice. but there is fitment issues with the 2.0 bolting to an F23 transmission so far as the thermostat housing goes. otherwise, either trans is a direct swap. The F35s 'intermediate driveshaft' or 'center shaft' or whatever the F they call it should bolt right up to the eco block and F23.

When it comes to the clutch actuator or 'throw out bearing', use the part that matches the transmission. I have yet to see if they're universal, but so far measurements i've taken give me hope. but until I get the skwirl to move on its own I won't be 100% sure.


my first post in this thread.. answers the question to the best of my knowledge. I've compared both flywheel and clutch assemblies side by side, physically, in my hand with a veneer and a tape measure comparing the two.

but to add to it since I constantly think in terms of jbody, the Ion should have little issues with bolting up to the L61 block. The external dimensions, and mounting holes of all ecotec blocks are identical. The issue with the F23 shifter cable bracket interfering with the thermostat housing is moot on the Ion since the LSJ T-housing works with the F35 (and both these parts should be brought over to the L61 block if you bolt it into the Ion).

issues with the spacer have been drawn to my attention by suncavi in my hybrid thread.. you may have to remove it to use the L61 block.. but again I'm not absolutely sure.

the 'self-adjustability' of the hydraulic clutch SHOULD be able to take up the slack since the dimension from the clutch pressure springs to the face of the engine's mounting surface is roughly within 1/16" or so. I won't know for sure until I try it in the skwirl but I'm 85% sure it will work properly.

you may need to retain it for the F35, but again I'm working with the F23 so its hard to say for sure.. if I can get the LSJ to work in my car WITHOUT the spacer, you should have to use the L61 WITH the spacer (basically keep the spacer with the transmission if it had it) but again.. until I get the skwirl moving and 100% functional I won't be absolutely
sure.


i can see what your saying, but according to the gentleman that did a LE5 bottom end swap into a redline, the LE5 (and i'm ASSUMING the L61) flywheel is actually thinner than the LSJ, that is the reason why he had a lsj flywheel welded and re-drilled for the le5..

now my thinking is that if the clutch assembly is thicker on the LSJ, then that could be the reason why the shim is there? why else would it be there? the LSJ and F35 cannot be put back together without the shim?? use the thinner assembly and take out the shim?

Now i have NO way to verify this as I do not have a L61 flywheel or clutch to compare, but i do have a stock LSJ flywheel and clutch laying around.




Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Monday, June 16, 2008 7:43 PM
i've never worked on an F35 hands on before, but I would buy that the LSJ flywheel being thicker than the L61 because i'm pretty sure that IS the case.. although off the top of my head I cannot remember.

If thats true, in theory couldn't you remove the spacer and run the engine straight to the F35 with the LE5 clutch/flywheel on the engine?

this does make me wonder about spacing to the starter though... in all honesty this is one of those problems where its going to come down to trial and error.


I wonder how the skwirl will behave once I get everything working and it comes down to do or die with the clutch actuator... I'm beginning to lose confidence.





Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Monday, June 16, 2008 9:12 PM
In theory, yes you could just remove the spacer and run a LE5/L61 clutch and flywheel combo,
mount alignment might suck to get back into place but i'm sure that could easily be taken care of..the shim isn't that big. shiming the starter isn't hard to do either.

Do you have pictures of the difference of the clutch actuators?




Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:16 PM
Pull the F35, and put in a F23. Problem solved. The F35 has been proven to be WEAK.

And this made me LOL
RyZ96 wrote:

I do not want a rev monster, hence the reason of increasing displacement, if i wanted to rev the hell out of the car i would build the 2.0..redline will be 7k max


You call 7k being a "Rev Monster"? lol. My LD9 (with the balance shafts removed mind you) reved to 7500 daily (although on the dyno I started to run lean @ 6800, so thats where my "420hp" peaked at). The 2.0 properly balanced should see 8k w/o a problem. (Chris takes his "W41 clone" Quad 4 to 8k)

If your hell bent on the built L61 bottom end and LSJ head, do the F23 swap and be done with it. Sell your trans and use the money to get a F23. Sell the charger and buy a GT35R, and call it a day. The mix and match of parts, and trial and error fitting them will drive you nuts, and after you get it all sorted out, you'll blow the F35 apart.

Just my $.02




SPD RCR Z - '02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT - '04 GTO 305whp
RACER X - '78 Opel Kadett W41 Swap

Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:18 PM
Lol I said I do NOT want a rev monster, hence the 7k max redline. IF i DID want one i would build the LSJ for 8+k redline..

I have a f23 sitting here at home from either a l200 or ion i'm not positive..Still debating if i should use the f35 or the f23 for the ease of it.
but i'm not to familiar with gear ratios, and I do not know how that would effect anything..Aren't the f35 geared longer in 2nd-5th?? meaning better use of the torque





Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:26 PM
the F35 has a higher FDR, which equals more wheel spin in a boosted car (unless you go with a large enough turbo, that it spools late...... and then you'd need a rev monster to make use of the power). Gearing aside, the F35 trans would either crack the case under a hard launch, or chew up third gear (common problems I've seen, heard, and read about).

Quote:

RyZ96 wrote:

I do not want a rev monster, hence the reason of increasing displacement, if i wanted to rev the hell out of the car i would build the 2.0..redline will be 7k max


sorry, I read it as if you wanted a rev monster, you would build the 2.0 with a redline of 7k....... but I guess I can see the pause, and the redline comment was ment towards the 2.2.....




SPD RCR Z - '02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT - '04 GTO 305whp
RACER X - '78 Opel Kadett W41 Swap

Re: L61 block, LSJ head, f35 trans..not a jbody
Friday, July 31, 2015 9:56 AM
Interesting stuff - I am in the midst of looking for a built head, may go with the LSJ head and built L61 bottom end with an F23 tranny that I already have. Since this thread was in 2008 - anything else changed? Would you guys agree if I were to follow this route on my L61? I really want the Patriot Head Stage 2 for the L61 but I believe the LSJ head is the better way to go (i mean an LSJ head that has P&P otherwise the gains would be the practically the same I'm sure). Are there better combinations of heads and blocks?


"FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE STOCK"




Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search