Buick 225 Flywheel Help

I have a 46' CJ2A with a swapped in Buick 225, SM465 and stock Dana 18.
I bought a second Buick 225 which has the same casting number as the motor I currently have. The casting numbers are B1358435.
The motor I bought I picked up for $200.00, and it is said to have been purchased as a rebuild from a local shop and still has some of the dust seals and tape to evidence so. It has sat for the last 15 or so years.
My question is regarding the flywheel. I have removed the flywheel from my existing motor and know that it is solid steel and very heavy, indicative of the odd fire design.
The motor I picked up has a flywheel which looks to have been vented and lightened.
Does anyone know anything about the flywheel? Can I use it with a standard clutch set? Or should I swap flywheels when I change the motors?
I have attached photos of the motor I purchased.

 

http://s840.photobucket.com/albums/zz330/tthstrm179/Buick%20225%20flywheel%20help/

Try this for the photos?

 

If the flywheel came with the motor from the rebuild shop it may have been balanced to match the motor. I'd suggest using that. If the flywheel looks like it was added later then use an oddfire flywheel, i.e. your heavy flywheel.
There were some flywheels that were lighter used with the oddfire 231 and can work with the 225. That may be what's on there or it could be aftermarket and matched to the motor.

 

Oops! Just saw the pics. You have a flex plate for an automatic transmission in your pics like Patrick showed. You need to swap your flywheel onto the motor to work with your manual transmission and clutch assembly.

 

You must also make sure to install the proper input shaft pilot bearing, before bolting up the transmission.

 

Thank you to all of you. I've never really dealt with automatic transmissions, and now that you have pointed out that this is a flex plate, it seems clear.
Thanks

 

Finally getting around to finishing this project. Anyone know offhand which input shaft bearing I need to match the Buick 225 to the sm465 transmission? I guess I can just match the one currently in the old motor if there isn't an easier answer. How are the bearings ordered? Based on the motor or the transmission?

Thanks!

 

Do you mean the pilot bearing in the end of the crankshaft? That's just a standard GM pilot bushing. Same as the SM-465 to SBC. Just for clarification an input shaft bearing is the one in the front of the transmission.

 

Gotcha. Thats the one I mean, so thank you very much. Any other parts that are associated with the pilot bearing that I will need? Also, for a non associated question:

I currently have a hydraulic slave cylinder setup for the clutch. I've been reading about the advance adapters chain clutch setup. Any experience or better/worse on either one?

 

I have a home brewed chain actuated clutch linkage installed in my 2A. There is rearward movement of the engine and transmission in the mounts when the clutch pedal is depressed. Some details still have to be worked out for me to be happy with it. If you already have the hydraulic set-up, run it. In my opinion, its a better method than the chain.

 

Hi everyone,

I know this post is REALLY OLD, but from my searches, it's come the closest to answering my question, so I thought I'd tag on to the end. I'm in the same boat as the original poster, as I have two odd fire engines, one is a Dauntless Jeep engine with a manual transmission and the other is a Buick engine from a late 60's car with an automatic transmission. The crankshaft in the Buick engine is the better of the two and I'd like to use it for the Jeep. I understand that I can install the Dauntless flywheel and a pilot bushing to the Buick crank, but my question is, will that mess up the balance? Was the Buick crank balanced with the flex plate installed? with the torque converter installed? Should I have the assembly re-balanced with the flywheel installed? In order to use the Dauntless crank, it would have to be ground undersize with bearings to match, which wouldn't be the end of the world, but that would cost more money than I'd hoped, but on the other hand, balancing would cost money as well...which would be more cost effective? Any ideas and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Brad