Bellhousing

[kgs365]

quicktime or lakewood?...do you have to trim both of them for fitment into an ERA?..

[DanEC]

KC's shop recommended Quicktime to me. Haven't picked it up yet so I can't answer your question about trimming - but I'm assuming I will have to do so with it.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by kgs365

quicktime or lakewood?...do you have to trim both of them for fitment into an ERA?..

Lykins assures me that the Quicktime is half the weight, half the size, and is available without the bottom flange. I have a Lakewood; QTs were not available way back then.... So, if I were you, I would contact blykins via a PM and he'll do you reasonably right on a QT bellhousing.

[ERA 778]

KC also recommended the QuickTime to me and I went with it. Since I haven't got the engine in the car yet, I don't know if there will be problems, but it definitely was not necessary to trim the bottom of the unit.

Hal

[patrickt]

FWIW, Lakewoods are almost never "dialed in" out of the box. Sometimes they are way, way, way, way off. I am told that the QTs are smack on right out of the box; however, I do not have any first hand experience to tell you whether it is true or not.

[kgs365]

awesome...love this forum!...thanks guys

[RICK LAKE]

kgs365 What ever bellhousing you install on the back of the motor you need to have it centered. I run a lakewood without cutting the bottom. This does void the warranty. I do think that the bell housing will still protect your legs and passenger. As long as you buy and SFI flywheel and clutch, the possiblitity is very small about a clutch or flywheel explodsion coming out of the bell.
Quick time now has SFI rated alot of the bellhousings. I would check about this for your application. Quicktime is half the weight of a lakewood. Lakewood has been around for 40+. Every stick car I have has a lakewood. I have blown clutches with the disc failures but no major one where the flywheel grenades.
If you are going to abuse the car with powershifts or hard racing you may also want to look at a trans shield or blanet to protect your legs from these breaking. Rick L.

[gsharapa]

Install installed a Quicktime with aluminum 496 FE and short shaft TKO600 and went in with no issues at all. A bit lighter and looks much nicer then Lakewood in my opinion.

[Bobcat]

Have the Quicktime on mine and it needed no trimming and ground clearance is fine . Dial it in .... regardless what Quicktime says . Mine was out about 7 thou. .... I used the RobbMc dowels and it was a snap to dial in . In a perfect world , the dimensions and tolerances on the block and bellhousing never vary . However , we don`t live in a perfect world . You may get lucky , but please check it anyway for peace of mind .

[Keithc8]

We use the Quicktime because they are much closer and they do niot have to be trimmed. A much nicer part at a good price. Give us a call and woulkd be happy to help you with one. We check them but find that they are within tolarance most of the time. ould need to know if ytou are using a short input trans or the standard input trans as they make one for both. I feel that on the cobra most of the guys go with the short inout trans to get the shifter and all in the right plaxce and this would require the right bellhousing to go with it.

Thanks, Keith

[blykins]

I would say Quicktime....

Half the weight of a Lakewood, smaller footprint, do not need trimmed if you buy the non-SFI (the one that doesn't have the pretty sticker) version. It will still function as a blowproof bellhousing and will withstand an explosion, but since it's not bolted around the bottom perimeter (which is where you have to trim), it's not SFI 6.1 rated.

[D-CEL]

Here is a non-SFI Quicktime (RM-8010) in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq5cjNhN_po

Here is a link to the post discussing the failure:

http://www.460ford.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138991


I will say as I have before, a “non certed” steel housing (like the Quicktime) will most likely provide better protection than a cast iron or aluminum housing.
Just remember there is a large difference between a SFI certified bellhousing and those that are not.
If anyone here has information, data or photos of SFI Certified housings failing to contain an explosion, Id love to see them and discuss it.


Jason

[blykins]

If you think an SFI bellhousing would have faired any differently, you are mistaken...theres not a lot of options when the threads pull out of the block.

if these non SFI belhousings pass SFI testing, then they pass SFI testing...

[kgs365]

SFI certified bellhousing then cut the bottom off...im not sure its still going to be SFI certified!...so although it would be nice...if it doesnt fit with out triming why spend the extra?...its still not going to be certified

Originally Posted by D-CEL

Here is a non-SFI Quicktime (RM-8010) in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq5cjNhN_po

Here is a link to the post discussing the failure:

http://www.460ford.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138991


I will say as I have before, a “non certed” steel housing (like the Quicktime) will most likely provide better protection than a cast iron or aluminum housing.
Just remember there is a large difference between a SFI certified bellhousing and those that are not.
If anyone here has information, data or photos of SFI Certified housings failing to contain an explosion, Id love to see them and discuss it.


Jason

[D-CEL]

Brent,
Interestingly enough, I do believe that a bellhousing that is designed in accordance with the SFI requirements (with lower containment bolts) and has been tested and passed, does provide better protection and would have a very different outcome after a failure.
I find it difficult to believe that you reinforce that company’s position of blaming the block.
Clearly a block, any block is incapable of withstanding the explosive force of a failing flywheel. This is why the SFI has set MINIMUM standards for block plate material and thickness coupled with a minimum number and configuration of containment bolts.
Their purpose is simple:
Too distribute the energy over a greatest possible area, lessening the impact force on any given point, allowing the energy to diffuse in a slow and contained manner.

I would further add that the unsupported bottom half of the non SFI housing, acts as a lever against the upper bolts and block, exacerbating the problem and increasing the chance of containment failure, like we see in the video.


Every time this discussion comes up, we hear the same unsubstantiated rhetoric.
“Passed all the testing, just doesn’t have a pretty sticker”
LOL, Really?
So QT spent thousands of dollars in testing that it passed, and they just stopped the process?
I ask again, provide some data that proves you position other than the Quicktime marketing hype. Either you or Ross McCombs of Quicktime post the passing test data or test results for PART # RM 8010.
If you say it has been tested and has passed, prove it.
Show us something for god sakes! How about other failures where the housing worked? Give us data other than:
“Its really good because the owner and chief profit taker says so”

Jason

[D-CEL]

I need to make this point again as it seems to get lost in the subterfuge. I have no problem producing or using a bell housing that does not meet the SFI standard.
Just market it as such. Don’t say it’s the same when it clearly is not.
If you choose to modify your housing for whatever reason, that is your choice, not a word from me. I assume you know the risks and proceed as you feel you should. Just like using a cast alum or magnesium housing, they are light and fit perfectly.
I get it.
Just don’t sell people lies! Saying “It’s the same” is simply untrue and designed to mislead the customer.

Jason

[RodgerH]

http://www.460ford.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138991

I see in the pictures there is a plate between the bellhousing and engine, however the only bolts appear to be threaded into the block.

My Lakewood has additional bolts and nuts, spaced between the bolts threaded into the block, clamping the engine plate and bellhousing. These help contain the flywheel/clutch pieces between the plate and bellhousing if the block breaks.

This makes me think the bellhousing on the dyno was not SFI approved. I was surprised there was no mention of the bellhousing in the thread.

Rodger

[blykins]

There is a difference between "SFI 6.1 rated" and "passed SFI testing."

To comply with SFI 6.1 rules, the bellhousing must be bolted along the bottom perimeter.

To pass SFI testing, the bellhousing must only contain a flywheel explosion at 10000 rpm.

I don't work for Quicktime. If you want proof of the tests, then please ask Quicktime (now part of the Prestolite company). As for myself, that's the only proof that I need. If Quicktime says that it passed SFI testing, then I have to take that at face value.

However, I do not blame the bellhousing for the incident that occurred to this guy's Boss 557...

I suppose we could recreate the incident with an SFI 6.1 bellhousing. Anyone have a Boss 557 that they would donate for the testing?

[D-CEL]

I just got off the phone with Quicktime (now owned by Mr. Gasket).
I spoke with a rep who stated he has industry experience with Bellhousing testing and certification. Additionally stated he had been present during testing in the past.
I told him who I was and gave him a brief description of the issue being discussed here.
I am paraphrasing a little, but this was the conversation
Jason: I’m looking at your website, specifically part # RM-8010. It says
“has passed all SFI testing” Please tell me what that means.
QT: It means that It can pass if you use a block plate and the containment bolts. SFI certification is very expensive so we offer the customer a cheaper alternative. It does not come with a block plate or bolts. But if you use a block plate and the bolts, it will pass. The metal, the shape has been tested and passed.
Jason: hmm, the website clearly shows a block plate included, but this specific part number does not have the lip or holes for the containment bolts
QT:. what part number is it?
Jason: RM-8010
QT: Hold on im looking..
(While he looked I brought up the video and spoke of the parameters of the failure, his tone changed, He asked me to forward the link to him, I did)

Jason: Let me be very specific: Has this part number, this configuration, without the lower containment bolts been tested and passed by SFI?

QT: No, without the lower containment bolts, it will not pass the test, it cannot contain the explosion, pieces will get out

Jason: I take issue when your web site states that it passes the test, insinuating that it offers the same level of protection. In speaking with the owner of the motor in the video, he believed that the housing he purchased was the same design as the SFI 6.1 housing, but not certified. It isn’t.
QT: I see that, I can tell you, we are in the process of taking over the quicktime website and reviewing the content, I will forward your comments, thank you for making us aware of it.
Then I called and spoke with Jennifer Faye, Program manager for SFI.
She was kind enough to send me a copy of SFI 6.1 so I could be clear on the requirements. She said that she would investigate.

[kgs365]

isnt this all moot if you have to cut the bottom off anyways?...its never going to be SFI certified...In my build it specifically calls for triming the bottom off!...its not going to matter SFI or non SFI