Good to know. Although it was very handy to thaw goggles when this guy had one I was riding with haha.
Thanks.
TRS Clutching
- Thread starter tdbaugha
- Start date
- Status
Good to know. Although it was very handy to thaw goggles when this guy had one I was riding with haha.
Thanks.
S
Spaarky
Well-known member
It is being tested. The starting place would be the TRS Pro clutching. I don't have it on my phone. I will get it posted. It is on the forum somewhere.
Hmm
This would be good, and a honest SxS compairson for clutch heat while running the quick drive equipped turbo Axys and a quick drive equipped stocker 2014-15 pro.
Last edited:
this is what i have (some of this maybe old info ?... Tony i will gladly delete any or all if this is unhelpful)
TRS
This clutch set up is for a stock 800 Pro and running the 3211115 belt at 8-10,000 ft. For 6-8,000 ft run 2 gram heavier weights.
Primary:
Lightning weights. 270# rider 58 gram 150-180# rider 62.5 gram. If you need to drill them to lighten, you must drill the holes all the same size. Exception> you can drill the tip one number size bigger than the rest.
Primary spring. Stock 140-330 or the 120-310(7043681).
The 120-310 will use a 1.5 gram lighter weight. Spider will need to be shimmed. Belt/sheave clearance set to .020"-.040" max. I don't like Polaris spec of 0"-.020". Any amount of heat in the clutch and it swells the .020" pretty fast. Less rolling resistance with it set a little wider.
SecondaryTSS-04:
Helix. 46-32F ER /46-34F ER. It is a special order/cut from Team. Full progressive. I run the 46-32F. Lower than 6000 ft and you can use the 46-34F instead of changing weights.
Secondary spring is a team blue/black or the polaris 120#-200#(7043152)
Center distance on clutch's 11.5".
Max lead in .030". With a .030" float. We all know how to adjust belt deflexion.
Gearing: 74 pitch chain. 20-46 or 19-46. I bounce back and forth here, for myself, all others 19-46.
Something I found very important, Green/White exhaust valve springs.(7041786-03)
I know you keep an eye on your track tension. I had to mention it because I see a lot of RPM problems from the track rubbing the tunnel.
Engagement will be 41-4300. This set up works real well in the trees. Stays engaged and doesn't fall out like the stock style helix does.
With a cool pipe 7950-8050, warm pipe 8050-8150, hot pipe 8150-8250. If it starts to drop off on a really long hard pull with a hot pipe its the ECU pulling timing. I like the hot pipe it makes perma grin.
I would consider adding the $28 upgrade it will end a lot of running issues.
I hope this answered your questions.
*Rider weight is buck naked in the morning before breakfast.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
TRS
This clutch set up is for a stock 800 Pro and running the 3211115 belt at 8-10,000 ft. For 6-8,000 ft run 2 gram heavier weights.
Primary:
Lightning weights. 270# rider 58 gram 150-180# rider 62.5 gram. If you need to drill them to lighten, you must drill the holes all the same size. Exception> you can drill the tip one number size bigger than the rest.
Primary spring. Stock 140-330 or the 120-310(7043681).
The 120-310 will use a 1.5 gram lighter weight. Spider will need to be shimmed. Belt/sheave clearance set to .020"-.040" max. I don't like Polaris spec of 0"-.020". Any amount of heat in the clutch and it swells the .020" pretty fast. Less rolling resistance with it set a little wider.
SecondaryTSS-04:
Helix. 46-32F ER /46-34F ER. It is a special order/cut from Team. Full progressive. I run the 46-32F. Lower than 6000 ft and you can use the 46-34F instead of changing weights.
Secondary spring is a team blue/black or the polaris 120#-200#(7043152)
Center distance on clutch's 11.5".
Max lead in .030". With a .030" float. We all know how to adjust belt deflexion.
Gearing: 74 pitch chain. 20-46 or 19-46. I bounce back and forth here, for myself, all others 19-46.
Something I found very important, Green/White exhaust valve springs.(7041786-03)
I know you keep an eye on your track tension. I had to mention it because I see a lot of RPM problems from the track rubbing the tunnel.
Engagement will be 41-4300. This set up works real well in the trees. Stays engaged and doesn't fall out like the stock style helix does.
With a cool pipe 7950-8050, warm pipe 8050-8150, hot pipe 8150-8250. If it starts to drop off on a really long hard pull with a hot pipe its the ECU pulling timing. I like the hot pipe it makes perma grin.
I would consider adding the $28 upgrade it will end a lot of running issues.
I hope this answered your questions.
*Rider weight is buck naked in the morning before breakfast.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Last edited:
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
That's the set up for the Pro chain case. 2.4" track or 2.5" camo. Thanks for posting.
NO thank you sir ! 
for your continued efforts to an outstanding setup
for your continued efforts to an outstanding setup
So I have been running a clutch with .040 belt to sheave, and it also wasn't fully shutting the last .025". I got my other clutch back from Cascade Clutch & Balance on Friday. .030" belt to sheave on the spot. Also threw in the 150-290 in the primary. (Running 140-200 in the secondary and 73.9 gram weights).
This thing PULLS. WOW. I was blown away and a little taken back by the pull. I was running ~9.5psi and only pulling 8250 too. Engagement is 4000RPM. Standing still at a high idle and then going WOT, the sled goes straight 12 o'clock like a big bore. It's insane. Turbos aren't supposed to do that! Track would start singing anytime I was in the throttle more than one second. Tony is serious when he says the shimming is very important. Next up I'll be running this setup with 72 grams weights so I can turn the boost down. Here is a picture of the primary clutch after about 6hrs of riding in spring like snow conditions:
Little gopro video of some riding from that day as well. Our snow has gone to crap so we just tooled around in the trees and explored some new riding zones.
This thing PULLS. WOW. I was blown away and a little taken back by the pull. I was running ~9.5psi and only pulling 8250 too. Engagement is 4000RPM. Standing still at a high idle and then going WOT, the sled goes straight 12 o'clock like a big bore. It's insane. Turbos aren't supposed to do that! Track would start singing anytime I was in the throttle more than one second. Tony is serious when he says the shimming is very important. Next up I'll be running this setup with 72 grams weights so I can turn the boost down. Here is a picture of the primary clutch after about 6hrs of riding in spring like snow conditions:
Little gopro video of some riding from that day as well. Our snow has gone to crap so we just tooled around in the trees and explored some new riding zones.
Thats excellent. Sounds very crisp. I have all the parts collected for the TRS clutching and have my my 174x3 geared to a final of 2.39. I really wish I understood all this clutching better. I will upgrade to the latest spring weights that you have TD. You have a 155x2.6 ? I have 174x3 what would be your best guess on primary and secondary springs changes if any between our 2 machines? We are both running MTNTKs at 9ish. Also I have 75.7 and 76.1 Lightnings from TCP. Thanks
Last edited:
I'm running a 163 2.6 with a belt drive. Geared 2.39:1 as well (although I'd recommend dropping that 44 to 43 tooth). I am liking my spring selections right now. But there is no way you'll pull RPM with that much weight and my light springs at 9lbs. I'd start at the recommended 140-220 secondary and put in a 150-310 or a 165-310 primary spring. Shimmed to .030" belt to sheave. See where that gets ya and go from there.
I here you on the 43 tooth. I had 2.32 final on my TPro last year. Out on Saturday for the first time with the 2.39... I really liked it. I bought the 43 tooth, its laying on my bench. 2.39 is nice in the trees. Decisions. Thanks for your help. Going to Chris Browns Valemount clinic this weekend so keeping my fingers crossed the clutching works.
G
geo
Well-known member
I'm a fan of soft spring shallow helix with the Team but I'm kinda starting from scratch again because of a big mistake in alignment ASSumption 3yrs ago. Can't get rid of the heat if you out of alignment eh. Rule #1 as Tdbaught pointed out.
Anytime TRS comes up on SW, I try to learn. I don't have a turbo so maybe y'all don't want this distraction so I'll delete in a couple of days and move to "Clutching" with the hope some will follow to learn with me, if we're smart enough.
Aaen says,,, the least side pressure required to clamp the belt is the most efficient. Only reason to vary from that is for backshift needs (really important in the mountains). Most efficient is most HP/Torque transferred to the track which we all want when we stray from out of the box I think. Once you have the secondary set (easy to say eh, lol) you tune the front to get the r's.
Some on this and every other thread on clutching wonder why this is such a "black art" and why math doesn't solve all. Me too but I think it would be a lot easier to figure out with math if I could find out ONE answer. What IS the actual minimum side pressure I need?
I've asked many, many people including Mr. Aaen himself. What is that number. How many lbs of side force at 1 to 1 is the minimum you can start at (on a Team). Is it 350lbs or is it 500 lbs. Usually no reply lol because there are variables there. Weight, traction, gearing, HP/Torque (won't use HP again because torque is what the secondary reacts to).
If anyone has a formula using those variables to come up with a side pressure minimum at 1 to 1 on a Team clutch I sure would like to know it.
I bought Tony's helix a couple of years ago. Made a mistake and ordered 48-32F. No biggy eh lol. It didn't work perfectly with TP's HHer's the way I had them set up duh again. Did I play with the front? No Duh. Instead I ordered a Tied helix (64/56F, 62/54F) and again it didn't really work because I didn't really play with the front DUH.
Balance is key when you get close to efficient.
Moral here. Tony's set-up (the whole darn thing ONLY) is perfection and the cost of schooling is the boxes of weights, springs, helix's and gallons of fuel.
Perfection is finicky to be perfect. Proof is tdbaugha having a noticeable improvement with .010" change in belt to sheave. Wow. Tony's NA recommendations show 4 gr change in primary weight for 90lb change in rider weight. Wow. 1.5gr change in weight for 20 lb change in spring pressure. Wow.
How many times have you changed a couple of grams on the front and never really saw much different? Sure sign the secondary is not close to being efficient.
I'd like to add to this thread with some things I've learned along the way (had a couple of helix's before Tony's). First I know nothing but may help some "wrap their head around" the concept, maybe pose some questions on the concept, maybe even get some of my questions answered on the concept.
First, ever wondered why,,, manufacturers and aftermarket spec a stiffer secondary as you climb in elevation (sometimes spring, sometimes helix, sometime both). I mean you have less weight in the primary to get the r's up so why do you need more squeeze to control less force form the primary?
It's not for added backshift (cause it was fine before with even more primary weight) It's because you make less TORQUE at elevation and torque is the force that makes the squeeze in the secondary.
Less torque in, equals less squeeze out of the secondary so you need to add it back mechanically as you gain elevation because the load is constant.
The reason you turbo guys can run big angles is because you add 50% more torque and the helix becomes happy to multiply that into squeeze for you. A NA set-up exactly the same in gearing, track and weight would slip and fail with that set-up because the squeeze would not be there because it makes less torque. Maybe Briand could add a couple of screen shots to illustrate this. 150 ftlb compared to 100 ftlbs same set-up but different side force.
Theoretically, you turbo guys able to adjust boost, would be able to run the same clutching from sea level to 12,000ft if you kept it at the same torque output level. I'm envious and wondering why all the differences expressed here saying sea level and altitude make a difference.
What is the difference between stiff spring steep helix and soft spring and shallow helix. When you look at Briand's screen shots of side force at full throttle they are pretty close, so what is the advantage?
First thing you have to admit is nobody rides at full throttle all the time. I mean if you turbo guys ran at full throttle all the time you would be jumping from mountain top to mountain top and missing the best in the valleys in between lol.
To better illustrate the difference between the two set-ups you would need to see some screen shots of the side pressure differences at 3/4 torque and 1/2 torque (could be loosely compared to throttle position) between these same set-ups. Briand??
Here you would see the advantage of losing the big spring, big helix. Easier opening secondary (but still enough squeeze to hold) at less torque equals more load through gear up of the secondary and quicker spool up from that load. Again envious of the advantages of too much torque.
My head problem (which is why knowing minimum side force at one point like 1 to 1 would be nice lol) is that Aaen guy again. He's telling me I need about a 2 to 1 ratio in side force from closed to open on the secondary. If you look at the screen shot's from Briand again, it's not even close. It'll probably work (bin dere dun dat) but is it the best yet.
You godda remember the more torque you got the more squeeze you get anyway.
Gearing. Tdbaugha covered that. You godda be honest and compromise towards efficiency to where you ride. I'm a tree geeker too. So does lower gearing need less squeeze for the secondary?
Went back and forth here alot lol. If geared lower the engine has to work less to get you moving at light throttle because it has a mechanical advantage now but at the same time you shift lower into the secondary for same mph, so that means higher into the primary which means less torque (because of bigger diameter off the engine)is applied to the secondary, which means more mechanical help for the squeeze is needed from the secondary (like loosing torque to elevation scenario) which means,,, yes and no lol.
My old Ski Doo racing book told me, spring has the most effect at part throttle and helix the most effect at full throttle so,,, dang it Tony is right again!
Backshift is our compromise in the mountains. Having too much torque has a big advantage. Jealous so just some thoughts.
Less weight will backshift quicker but you still need to load your motor. Less is better IMO.
More spring will backshift quicker but can you backshift too fast. IMO absolutely. If you backshift too fast, besides the resistance to upshift with light throttle, when your secondary is backing up way faster than your front, it is applying constant pressure (now both up and down) on the belt. The belt never gets a chance to lose some heat from losing the work it needs to do and you use more thumb to get it to get the upshift restarted which again squeezes more than it needs for that instant.
Mr Aaen would not be impressed but we have limitations with the Team because we lose our backshift part of the ramp at about 1/2 way back. Darn E-reverse.
Thanks for listening and hope a couple of gearheads can help me find the minimum side pressure needed to make this art more mathematical.
I also really wish Tony had the cash to work with the Tied. There is room in the Tied to get down to 13, 14 degrees (equivalent to the TSS 04) finish angles. Maybe we can get back to 40/90 lb springs of old and find someone to build them in 5 lb increments.
Anytime TRS comes up on SW, I try to learn. I don't have a turbo so maybe y'all don't want this distraction so I'll delete in a couple of days and move to "Clutching" with the hope some will follow to learn with me, if we're smart enough.
Aaen says,,, the least side pressure required to clamp the belt is the most efficient. Only reason to vary from that is for backshift needs (really important in the mountains). Most efficient is most HP/Torque transferred to the track which we all want when we stray from out of the box I think. Once you have the secondary set (easy to say eh, lol) you tune the front to get the r's.
Some on this and every other thread on clutching wonder why this is such a "black art" and why math doesn't solve all. Me too but I think it would be a lot easier to figure out with math if I could find out ONE answer. What IS the actual minimum side pressure I need?
I've asked many, many people including Mr. Aaen himself. What is that number. How many lbs of side force at 1 to 1 is the minimum you can start at (on a Team). Is it 350lbs or is it 500 lbs. Usually no reply lol because there are variables there. Weight, traction, gearing, HP/Torque (won't use HP again because torque is what the secondary reacts to).
If anyone has a formula using those variables to come up with a side pressure minimum at 1 to 1 on a Team clutch I sure would like to know it.
I bought Tony's helix a couple of years ago. Made a mistake and ordered 48-32F. No biggy eh lol. It didn't work perfectly with TP's HHer's the way I had them set up duh again. Did I play with the front? No Duh. Instead I ordered a Tied helix (64/56F, 62/54F) and again it didn't really work because I didn't really play with the front DUH.
Balance is key when you get close to efficient.
Moral here. Tony's set-up (the whole darn thing ONLY) is perfection and the cost of schooling is the boxes of weights, springs, helix's and gallons of fuel.
Perfection is finicky to be perfect. Proof is tdbaugha having a noticeable improvement with .010" change in belt to sheave. Wow. Tony's NA recommendations show 4 gr change in primary weight for 90lb change in rider weight. Wow. 1.5gr change in weight for 20 lb change in spring pressure. Wow.
How many times have you changed a couple of grams on the front and never really saw much different? Sure sign the secondary is not close to being efficient.
I'd like to add to this thread with some things I've learned along the way (had a couple of helix's before Tony's). First I know nothing but may help some "wrap their head around" the concept, maybe pose some questions on the concept, maybe even get some of my questions answered on the concept.
First, ever wondered why,,, manufacturers and aftermarket spec a stiffer secondary as you climb in elevation (sometimes spring, sometimes helix, sometime both). I mean you have less weight in the primary to get the r's up so why do you need more squeeze to control less force form the primary?
It's not for added backshift (cause it was fine before with even more primary weight) It's because you make less TORQUE at elevation and torque is the force that makes the squeeze in the secondary.
Less torque in, equals less squeeze out of the secondary so you need to add it back mechanically as you gain elevation because the load is constant.
The reason you turbo guys can run big angles is because you add 50% more torque and the helix becomes happy to multiply that into squeeze for you. A NA set-up exactly the same in gearing, track and weight would slip and fail with that set-up because the squeeze would not be there because it makes less torque. Maybe Briand could add a couple of screen shots to illustrate this. 150 ftlb compared to 100 ftlbs same set-up but different side force.
Theoretically, you turbo guys able to adjust boost, would be able to run the same clutching from sea level to 12,000ft if you kept it at the same torque output level. I'm envious and wondering why all the differences expressed here saying sea level and altitude make a difference.
What is the difference between stiff spring steep helix and soft spring and shallow helix. When you look at Briand's screen shots of side force at full throttle they are pretty close, so what is the advantage?
First thing you have to admit is nobody rides at full throttle all the time. I mean if you turbo guys ran at full throttle all the time you would be jumping from mountain top to mountain top and missing the best in the valleys in between lol.
To better illustrate the difference between the two set-ups you would need to see some screen shots of the side pressure differences at 3/4 torque and 1/2 torque (could be loosely compared to throttle position) between these same set-ups. Briand??
Here you would see the advantage of losing the big spring, big helix. Easier opening secondary (but still enough squeeze to hold) at less torque equals more load through gear up of the secondary and quicker spool up from that load. Again envious of the advantages of too much torque.
My head problem (which is why knowing minimum side force at one point like 1 to 1 would be nice lol) is that Aaen guy again. He's telling me I need about a 2 to 1 ratio in side force from closed to open on the secondary. If you look at the screen shot's from Briand again, it's not even close. It'll probably work (bin dere dun dat) but is it the best yet.
You godda remember the more torque you got the more squeeze you get anyway.
Gearing. Tdbaugha covered that. You godda be honest and compromise towards efficiency to where you ride. I'm a tree geeker too. So does lower gearing need less squeeze for the secondary?
Went back and forth here alot lol. If geared lower the engine has to work less to get you moving at light throttle because it has a mechanical advantage now but at the same time you shift lower into the secondary for same mph, so that means higher into the primary which means less torque (because of bigger diameter off the engine)is applied to the secondary, which means more mechanical help for the squeeze is needed from the secondary (like loosing torque to elevation scenario) which means,,, yes and no lol.
My old Ski Doo racing book told me, spring has the most effect at part throttle and helix the most effect at full throttle so,,, dang it Tony is right again!
Backshift is our compromise in the mountains. Having too much torque has a big advantage. Jealous so just some thoughts.
Less weight will backshift quicker but you still need to load your motor. Less is better IMO.
More spring will backshift quicker but can you backshift too fast. IMO absolutely. If you backshift too fast, besides the resistance to upshift with light throttle, when your secondary is backing up way faster than your front, it is applying constant pressure (now both up and down) on the belt. The belt never gets a chance to lose some heat from losing the work it needs to do and you use more thumb to get it to get the upshift restarted which again squeezes more than it needs for that instant.
Mr Aaen would not be impressed but we have limitations with the Team because we lose our backshift part of the ramp at about 1/2 way back. Darn E-reverse.
Thanks for listening and hope a couple of gearheads can help me find the minimum side pressure needed to make this art more mathematical.
I also really wish Tony had the cash to work with the Tied. There is room in the Tied to get down to 13, 14 degrees (equivalent to the TSS 04) finish angles. Maybe we can get back to 40/90 lb springs of old and find someone to build them in 5 lb increments.
B
briand
Well-known member
The first graph shows Tony setup turbo and stock. 139 pounds difference in side force.
Second graph shows a straight 44 with a 180-300 secondary spring setup turbo and stock. 90 pounds of side force difference.
Third graph shows Tony and the 44* setup turbo. Tonys turbo setup has 33 pounds more side force
Forth shows Tony's and 44* Stock. Tonys setup has 20 pounds less side force pressure.
I used 80 foot pounds of torque in these graphs as i felt this would be closer to real up at 8000ft-10000ft then using the roughly 100 foot pound of torque stock rated.
Very interesting numbers.
Second graph shows a straight 44 with a 180-300 secondary spring setup turbo and stock. 90 pounds of side force difference.
Third graph shows Tony and the 44* setup turbo. Tonys turbo setup has 33 pounds more side force
Forth shows Tony's and 44* Stock. Tonys setup has 20 pounds less side force pressure.
I used 80 foot pounds of torque in these graphs as i felt this would be closer to real up at 8000ft-10000ft then using the roughly 100 foot pound of torque stock rated.
Very interesting numbers.
Last edited:
Can you change it up to reflect 46-32F
140-200 and a 125-175 sec. spring for a turbo
100-150 spring for NA
16 Axys 163 3 inch Silber turbo
Primary
72.5 gram lightning weights
150-310 spring (blue)
Shimmed to .020-.030
Secondary
46-32f
140-220 spring (blk/grn)
Haven't checked alignment yet
Gearing
20/44
Belt
45C
I haven't had this setup on the hill yet, just testing it at 3700 feet. Engagement at 4000 rpm. With the 5 lbs spring in, the rpm would spike to 8500-8550 and settle in at 8450. The clutch setup that came with it would typically hit the rev limiter causing it to stumble. This setup has solved this issue. With the 3 lbs spring in, it would spike to 8400 and settle in a 8300. Clutches are staying cooler then the belt.
Off to test it at 6k to 8k this weekend.
Primary
72.5 gram lightning weights
150-310 spring (blue)
Shimmed to .020-.030
Secondary
46-32f
140-220 spring (blk/grn)
Haven't checked alignment yet
Gearing
20/44
Belt
45C
I haven't had this setup on the hill yet, just testing it at 3700 feet. Engagement at 4000 rpm. With the 5 lbs spring in, the rpm would spike to 8500-8550 and settle in at 8450. The clutch setup that came with it would typically hit the rev limiter causing it to stumble. This setup has solved this issue. With the 3 lbs spring in, it would spike to 8400 and settle in a 8300. Clutches are staying cooler then the belt.
Off to test it at 6k to 8k this weekend.
B
briand
Well-known member
No problem Tony her you go.
The first one Is the 140-220 vs 140-200 spring
Second one is the 140-200 vs 125-175 spring
Third is NA 120-200 vs the 100-150 spring.
I also included the calculator if you want to use it tony (or anyone else) to experiment with. you just need to change numbers in column B.
Last edited:
Clutch Alignment Tool
I am not sure if this was posted somewhere already, but when reading through everything and how critical clutch alignment was I went in a search for a alignment tool and came up with this form a hardcoresledder post...
http://m.ebay.com/itm/Polaris-Axys-snowmobile-clutch-offset-alignment-tool-Like-PS51607-/192011122265?hash=item2cb4c13659%3Ag%3Alo0AAOSwal5YEmvM&_trkparms=pageci%253Ac00faa29-e7a9-11e6-a2ad-005056bb187c%257Cparentrq%253Af4516c091590a5e2995bb73dffa349da%257Ciid%253A1
I received it last night and it is a great tool. Machines out of 1/4" aluminum so it is super durable and fit the primary clutch faceblike a glove. My clutch was slightly out of alignment, had to remove ~.015" from behind the secondary. This tool is a great alternative to buying the Polaris tool and at a lower price... while supporting another fellow snowmobiles.
I am not sure if this was posted somewhere already, but when reading through everything and how critical clutch alignment was I went in a search for a alignment tool and came up with this form a hardcoresledder post...
http://m.ebay.com/itm/Polaris-Axys-snowmobile-clutch-offset-alignment-tool-Like-PS51607-/192011122265?hash=item2cb4c13659%3Ag%3Alo0AAOSwal5YEmvM&_trkparms=pageci%253Ac00faa29-e7a9-11e6-a2ad-005056bb187c%257Cparentrq%253Af4516c091590a5e2995bb73dffa349da%257Ciid%253A1
I received it last night and it is a great tool. Machines out of 1/4" aluminum so it is super durable and fit the primary clutch faceblike a glove. My clutch was slightly out of alignment, had to remove ~.015" from behind the secondary. This tool is a great alternative to buying the Polaris tool and at a lower price... while supporting another fellow snowmobiles.
Excellent information! Our first Silber convert! Haha.
Couple things: Was this testing at 3700' on flat ground? What I am finding is you pick up a 100 or so RPM when you get it on a slope and load it that way. So are you going to throw in the 7# spring for the 6k-8k elevation then?
As far as alignment goes, I have a stack of about .230" worth of washers behind the secondary. And am floating it .050". This gives me a .145" gap in between the front of the secondary clutch and the SLP 20-191 bar. Belt witness marks match inside to outside so I THINK this is as good as we can get with this motor clocked in the chassis out of parallel. I'm not running any extra motor mounts either.
That looks like a quality piece. But we set our clutch alignment up with the factory bar (matches this one) and found it to be pretty significantly off.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
