Yes, this is precisely my concern...Motor torque is somewhat irrelevant to bolt torque. If you have substantial torque over the stock application, the flywheel bolts will fail in shear (then you can go to the casting call for Lt Dan in a Forest Gump play and be legit). The clutch is supposed to slip to protect the system from loading the flywheel bolts that high.
Well... maybe the OEM specs are fine. The vehicle was converted in the late 90s and the previous owner said he used to keep the RPMs high (for greater efficiency). Mind you, that was using a Kostov motor, which he destroyed by pushing the RPMs too high...but he didn't mention the flywheel/press.plate having exploded, so maybe it's fine? lol😬
Note that a clutch pressure plate has weights on it, so not only may you have a flywheel bolt problem due to torque, but excessive RPM means higher pressure plate forces which means that mechanical fuse of clutch slippage is gone for the flywheel bolts and you could frag the stock cast iron pressure plate with the high forces.
I also feel sorry for the input shaft and cluster shaft bearings on your T5....they also are not rated for high RPM much beyond the ICE speeds. It may work, but for how long?
If you are constantly running high motor RPM, I'd invest in a scattershield or at least a blanket.
Alright. Appreciate your bearing with me / guiding me through this process!ta da!
Yes, in this idiotic representation of test data, not designed to be convenient for any purpose, the peak of the efficiency curve (of about 94%) occurs when the motor in the test was producing around 50 to 60 lb-ft of torque, and that torque was produced while the motor in the test was (according to the RPM curve) turning at 2500 to 2800 RPM.
I think according to this graph from Netgain that the max efficiency for a WarP9 is around 2500-2800 rpm...?
The claim of "much higher RPM's and torque" for the electric motor is very questionable, but it doesn't matter. Tightening the bolts more won't make anything stronger. The bolts should be tightened to the torque which is appropriate for the bolts and the parts being bolted together. If the result is not strong enough, you need a different design, not just a different torque; if the result is stronger than required, okay, that doesn't mean that the bolts should be looser or tighter.Yes, this was my first thought. However, it seems counter-intuitive to me, since the OEM specs are for mounting the FW to the ICE, whereas of course this is an electric motor (operating at much higher RPM's and torque).
The flywheel is bolted to the engine, not the transmission. The bolted flange connection is part of the engine specs, not those of the transmission... but if the flywheel you're using is from the GM 2.8 V6, that's the source of flywheel-to-flange bolting specs.The vehicle is a 1987 Dodge Dakota; however, that is not much help, because the transmission is a T5 Borg Warner of the kind used in a "GM 1985 S-Truck 2.8 V6". So I suppose I could use the specs for a '85 S10, but like I said, while it was my initial thinking, it does seem odd considering it is not technically mounted to a ICE.