OK Randii I see what you are saying and this idea is definetly feasible. The clutch hub is perfectly centered, not offset like I had thought. So by reassembling the disc with the marcel on the opposites side of the hub I will gain the offset distance of the little rivet standoffs/spacers that keep the hub from touching the coverplate and the marcel. It seems like I couldn't get longer spacers installed because their hieght keeps the springs centered.

The little spacers are only 1/4" though. Not sure if this would be a good bang for the buck as I might have to get someone to replace the rivets. Maybe I could use low profile hex screwes & nuts and tack weld and grind them once they are tightened?

Hard to visualize, but I think you gain the standoff plus half the thickness of the marcel and hub flange. I don't have a good feeling about refastening the plate with anything other than hrdaulically-stamped steel rivets (i.e. what's in there now), so I still think you are looking at an outsource job and not a DIY.

It is a small gain, but is it enough so that you only need to shave the backside of the bellhousing (which IIRC is thicker)? It only works if it all fits inside the bellhousing, as well...

Randii

The standoff bridges across the hub, so the hub width doesn't effect the amount I would gain. Just the standoff width plus half the marcel thickness too.

The only way to really tell if this'll work will be to wreck a perfectly good clutch (unless you can find one from the scrap yard). Drill out the rivets, reassemble temporarily with small bolts, then see if it'll fit inside the flywheel -- you already know it'll fit inside the pressure plate.

You have this shot of the back of the clutch plate -- do you have any shots of it from the side? How 'bout a pic of the back of the flywheel, with no clutch on it?

I dredged up a link of 3800 flywheels, does yours look like either one of the flywheels shown on the following page? http://www.westcoastfiero.com/engine_hardware_90/90_degree_engine_hardware.html

Quoting that article I linked above: "The hub was shaped exactly as IÆd expected protruding out about 7/8" on the flywheel side and none in back.". That sounds about right, doesn't it? The dimensions would be different with your hub, but if they can assemble with that offset, maybe they'd be willing to simply re-rivet your stack?

In a whole different direction, while searching for flywheel pics, I found this tidbit at
http://floridafieros.org/osg/mod.3800-V6.html
option 1: modify a F-body Flywheel: The F-body flywheel (p.n.#24503285) is 1.110 inch thick. This needs to turned down to .840 inch to match the V6 Getrag flywheel thickness.
That's .270" difference, which gets you that much closer if you are running the skinny flywheel and can swap to the thicker one. Verify that the imbalance stays the same, tho (or can be changed). How thick is your current flywheel, and what is it's diameter? 8 bolts, right, with one key'd off-space to set the balance?

Generally, speaking, you need a goal. Do you want 100% engagement? What % will be 'enough?' What's the overall length of the splines in the hub? If they are 1.5" and you are .5" short, I'm a little uncomfortable, but as nice as it would be to get that whole .5", I'd rest pretty easy with the 80-85% engagement that .25" would get you, from any of the methods discussed above.

Randii

The hub is actually offset .17" towards the transmission in the orientation I have set it up. arrow is towards trans.


i had to draw a diagram to figure it out but say my configuration now is on the left. The little blue lines at the top are .17" different in size. So if you flip the marcel over and then spin the clutch 180 you are not solving the problem but only making it .17" worse.




The camaro flywheel is 1.1" thick, I ordered a flexplate to see if the spacer/flexplate idea would work.

Let me throw something else at you. Following that link Randii sent, it looks like West Coast Fiero modifies GM 2.8L V6 externaly balanced flywheels to fit the 3800 bolt pattern.

http://www.westcoastfiero.com/engine_hardware_90/90_degree_hardware_gif/flywheel_500.jpg

The Camaro 3.4L V6 flywheel is thicker than the 3800 flywheel and the S10 flywheel. I've measured one myself. I believe the 2.8L is the same. (88 and later is neutral balance).

http://www.jeeps-offroad.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2285&d=1097079715

If you can find an 87 and earlier 2.8L Camaro flywheel AND if it could be modified SAFELY, it could be a player.

Greg

Why would I want an externally balanced one versus a neutral balanced one? Whatever goes back on this engine is not original and not matching up anyway. Or is 88 the year they changed thicknesses?

This might be more complicated as the ring gear could be of a different diameter, different number and pitch of the teeth, and the wrong offset off the crank for the 3800 starter. I bet they are only like $10 so it wouldn't hurt to try.

Well, according to the West Coast website, they start out with the externally balanced versions. I guess they're easier to match balance to the 3800. 88 was the year the 2.8 went from external balancing to internal balancing. All of the Camaro\Firebird versions are pretty thick.

Greg <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/notooth.gif" alt="" />

80-85% sounds good the clutch hub is 1" so I need to make up at least .4"

Back of an S10 2.8 Externally balanced flywheel. Looks very similar to your 3800 one. Camaro versions are MUCH thicker.

http://60degreev6.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=794

Greg