Jump to content

Welcome to RennTech.org Community, Guest

There are many great features available to you once you register at RennTech.org
You are free to view posts here, but you must log in to reply to existing posts, or to start your own new topic. Like most online communities, there are costs involved to maintain a site like this - so we encourage our members to donate. All donations go to the costs operating and maintaining this site. We prefer that guests take part in our community and we offer a lot in return to those willing to join our corner of the Porsche world. This site is 99 percent member supported (less than 1 percent comes from advertising) - so please consider an annual donation to keep this site running.

Here are some of the features available - once you register at RennTech.org

  • View Classified Ads
  • DIY Tutorials
  • Porsche TSB Listings (limited)
  • VIN Decoder
  • Special Offers
  • OBD II P-Codes
  • Paint Codes
  • Registry
  • Videos System
  • View Reviews
  • and get rid of this welcome message

It takes just a few minutes to register, and it's FREE

Contributing Members also get these additional benefits:
(you become a Contributing Member by donating money to the operation of this site)

  • No ads - advertisements are removed
  • Access the Contributors Only Forum
  • Contributing Members Only Downloads
  • Send attachments with PMs
  • All image/file storage limits are substantially increased for all Contributing Members
  • Option Codes Lookup
  • VIN Option Lookups (limited)
2000GotBoxS

2000 Boxster S Sport Clutch Kit Needed

Recommended Posts

Howdy Folks!

 

I recently purchased the Aasco Lightened Flywheel for my 2000 Boxster S (3.2L)

 

I am looking for a sprung clutch that is stronger, more durable, with higher friction coefficient  and clamping power.  I don't want to break the bank though.  I do autoX and, shall we say "highly spirited driving" on the street, so, full race isn't needed.

 

This is the second time I have put the Aasco flywheel into a Porsche.  The last one was a 2001 Carrera (base model, 3.4L).  I absolutely loved the flywheel.  Talk about the best upgrade one can do for these cars.  Getting rid of that heavy monster dual-mass flywheel completely changed the way the car took off and drove.  I would speculate that it left the line twice as fast, although that's just a seat of the pants, butt measurement, and isn't based on any real numbers.

 

The one issue I had was I didn't like the feel of the clutch after the upgarde.  It felt too, "soft", for lack of a better word.  Despite putting in a brand new clutch, it just didn't feel like I wanted it to.   I would like one with more clamping force, and less "slip."  The stock type clutch no longer seemed to be able to hold the power that was being delivered to the wheels in a much quicker fashion.

 

So, with this one, I'd like some advice on the clutches that folks have used with the lightened flywheel upgrade, ie: more clamping force, and less slip.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
    You can remove these ads by becoming a Contributing Member.

A lighter flywheel is a a great mod.I fitted one to a Miata and loved it.

The M96 is a different situation.Without the DMF ,how will you deal with harmonic imbalance?

Some just ignore this issue or are unaware of it and may not suffer any issues but it may be prudent to investigate the issue more?

There is lots of info if you Search.Here is an example:

http://www.flat6innovations.com/index.php/broken-crank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the 3rd Aasco Flywheel that I have added to the M96 engine.  Aside from a slight rattle while the clutch is not depressed there are no issues at all.  The only reason that the DMF is used is COMFORT.  Its strictly to stop driveline noises and vibrations so that you have a nice smooth ride.  They don't use the DMF in the higher end Turbo, GT3, GT2 cars. because they are "luxury" cars and are marketed to a different clientele.

 

There are springs in the clutch plate to handle the slight harmonics that may be transmitted from the driveline back to the engine.  I wouldn't suggest using the stock unsprung clutch.  Using a double sprung clutch is a much better way to go.   But, which one is my question?  I have used both the "stock" sprung, and the "Super" sprung clutch, but, there are so many choices.

 

I just wanted to know what most folks have used.  

 

That engine that you just showed didn't fly apart because of a flywheel, that right there is massive catastrophic failure..  Probably threw a rod, and that grenaded the crank.

 

I think that the Aasco flywheel is THE SINGLE BEST UPGRADE one can do to a Boxster, or Carrera.  You're unleashing a lot more power than in a Miata.  I also have added them to an Old MGB too, and that is a significant upgrade, but, neither one of them has Porsche power.  It really changes the off the line power.

 

anyone else on the clutch they like?

 

Thanks,

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not disputing your experience ,nor your choice.

Just for the info of others reading this, Raby specifically discussed this issue in the link above and said:

"I feel that this failure was attributed to by a couple of things-
1- The engine was "upgraded" to a lightened flywheel. This new flywheel was installed onto the existing stock engine without being balanced to that assembly. This created an imbalance in the rotating mass AND it did away with the factory dual mass flywheel.

2- The dual mass flywheel was removed to allow the single mass lightened unit to be installed. This eliminated ALL MEANS OF HARMONIC DAMPENING!! The crankshaft was forced to absorb ALL harmonics from the engine and transaxle when the dual mass unit was removed..

So- adding the light weight flywheel was a double negative, not only did it create imbalance, it also eliminated the harmonic dampening of the dual mass arrangement.

Due to this I feel that adding a lightweight flywheel to any existing engine is not a wise decision, and that they should only be added when the entire rotating mass can be balanced and indexed to accommodate the lightweight unit. This means engine disassembly, so I'd only add one of these when doing one of our performance upgrades so the entire assembly can be precisely balanced."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

 

That engine that you just showed didn't fly apart because of a flywheel, that right there is massive catastrophic failure..  Probably threw a rod, and that grenaded the crank.

 

 

 

We have seen more than one M96 literally "shaken to death" by these flywheels.  And that particular broken crank came out of an X51 equipped car, whose owner has publicly also stated online was the result of harmonics, and not caused by a rod or other failure.

 

While some have had reasonable luck with these flywheels, others have not been so fortunate.  Right out of the box, this particular brand has sometimes been found to be 10-15 grams out of balance just in the flywheel itself, which is considerable.  As the result of these issues, we continue to recommend against their use unless the entire rotating assembly, including the flywheel, had been dynamically balanced to reduce the harmonics.  Porsche even released a bulletin to their dealers warning against their use.

 

And just as a reference point, changing flywheel weights does not free up much in the way of power, it changes the dynamics of how the engine accelerates.  Before and after dyno pulls have shown 1.5-2 HP, which is considered within the realm of experimental error.  We have seen similar "improvements" from things like changing the thermostat temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly such a large amount of weight is an attractive weight-saving target. Shaeffler have a lighter DMF in development.Hopefully this would be back-compatible.

A new DmF may be imperfectly imbalanced.Mine needed a little modification.

If you read the engineering details, you wonder how often a used DMF is correctly tested before being put back in service.

Here is the Schaeffler info and there are You Tube videos on testing the DMF that I have linked elsewhere when this subject was discussed.

http://www.schaeffler.com/remotemedien/media/_shared_media/08_media_library/01_publications/automotiveaftermarket/brochure_1/downloads_5/luk_5/luk_fail_diag_zms_de_en.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly such a large amount of weight is an attractive weight-saving target. Shaeffler have a lighter DMF in development.Hopefully this would be back-compatible.

A new DmF may be imperfectly imbalanced.Mine needed a little modification.

If you read the engineering details, you wonder how often a used DMF is correctly tested before being put back in service.

Here is the Schaeffler info and there are You Tube videos on testing the DMF that I have linked elsewhere when this subject was discussed.

http://www.schaeffler.com/remotemedien/media/_shared_media/08_media_library/01_publications/automotiveaftermarket/brochure_1/downloads_5/luk_5/luk_fail_diag_zms_de_en.pdf

 

That procedure is somewhat over kill.  Porsche released a TSB on how to do this without a bunch of tools years ago:

Dual Mass Flywheel Test 996 Tech Bulletin.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I really appreciate all this info.  I am somewhat an info junky.  So, please don't take this the wrong way, but, I don't think the risk is any greater with a lightened flywheel.  I think its actually lessened because I have removed an extra 25 pounds from the crank.

 

I've already bought the thing, and I think we've kind of gotten off of the subject of the original question.  I certainly enjoyed reading everything, so, thanks for the responses, I really appreciate them.

 

I was hoping that someone on here has actually run one of these flywheels.  You're really missing something special, if you haven't.

 

I've already installed 2 of these, one in a MY01 Carrera and one in a MY99 Base Boxster, and had absolutely no issues over tens of thousands of miles.  Its my opinion, and, I know, we all know what opinions are like, right, but, most of what I have heard, read, and experienced is that the DMF is strictly a "comfort" item.  Its designed to make the entry level Porsches feel smooth as a baby's bottom while cruising at 80 mph.  That's it, really.  They separate driveline, and engine vibrations from the cockpit.

 

There are couple of ways of dampening these torsional and vibrational forces.  You can double spring the clutch plate itself, (traditional) or you can spring the flywheel ( DMF).  Porsche has chosen to spring the flywheel, and leave the clutch disk itself, unsprung, in the lower end cars in their stable.  In the higher end, racier models, they go with a traditional solid flywheel and a double spring clutch.  There's a reason for that, and its delivery of HP to the wheels, as swiftly as possible!

 

In my opinion they both do the exact same thing.  I would venture one further to say that there's probably more chance of shaking an engine to death with something that weighs 38 pounds and hangs from a spring than with something that weighs 13 pounds and doesn't.

 

Remember, the heaviest portion of the DMF is still bolted to the crank, "solidly," just like a lightened flywheel would.  Sure, the secondary part of it is hung off of springs, but, its the same case with a double sprung clutch.  These lightened flywheels are zero balanced, and sure, if I was building a racing engine, that revved to 10,000 RPMs I would definitely take out the rotating mass and have them all balanced together, but, this is a street car, not a race car.

 

Instead of using the solid clutch disk, like Porsche does in the entry level cars, I'll use a sprung clutch.  Those springs will be the mode of removing the torsional harmonics, and vibrations of both the engine and the driveline, and will separate them from each other.  This technology has been used for decades and decades, in every single car with a manual trans, it works.

 

Is it as efficient at removing all of the same vibrations and driveline noises that a DMFcan, NO, of course not.  But, I'm certainly not afraid of putting one in my car.

 

I risk nothing more than someone that removes a DMF and puts a new clutch in their car.  I would guess I risk less, as I have removed over 25 pounds of rotating mass immediately bolted to the back of the engine.

 

A note about the hp.  I am sure that it doesn't change the HP output of the engine, of course, it certainly changes the amount that gets to the wheels.  It changes the way that the power gets to the wheels for sure.  The engine goes from idle to 7000 rpms much, much faster.  That's why they put these into the turbo and GT2 and GT3 cars.  If its quick acceleration that you want, this will certainly fill the bill.

 

Anyway, has anyone used one of these on a street car?  what clutch did you use?  If you have more input on the flywheels, I'd still love to see it, but, I am still holding out for someone that has run a clutch with more clamping force and friction with the Aasco flywheel.

 

Thanks Guys!!!!

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can believe what ever you please, but the DMF is not there to make the car smoother to drive, it is there to control torsional and harmonic loads in a engine the is barely at all  balanced from the factory, which was done simply to save money during assembly.  The DMF is a giant band aide to make up for that shortcoming, particularly as there is no front crank nose mounted dampener. 

 

Springs on a clutch disc do absolutely nothing to dampen torsional or harmonic loads, they are there simply to reduce clutch chatter as the clutch engages, which what really makes the car smoother to drive.  Once the clutch disc is clamped by the clutch plate, the springs are completely compressed and doing nothing, they are along for the ride.  The DMF, meanwhile, is always rotating with the engine, and always at engine speed, with the outer section of the mass separated by an elastomeric membrane and springs, which is there specifically to dampen harmonic and torsional irregularities out of the system.  Over the years, we have more than once been called in to pick up the pieces which resulted from using one of these lightweight flywheels.  Along with crank failures, we have also seen thrust bearing issues, brand new units that cleaned the crank position senor head off inside the bell housing because the CPS shutter teeth on the back of the flywheel were in the wrong place, or deformed enough to cause contact; and we even had one that on a car which would not run correctly because the mandatory gap between two of the shutter teeth that the DME needs was missing.  Quite plainly, over the year, my shop had made a lot of money unwinding the problems caused by these flywheels.

 

At the end of the day, it is your money and your car, so proceed however you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Mech Eng I find posts like #9 difficult. I am not disputing anecdotal experience.

For anyone thinking of ignoring all the engineering brainpower and experience that goes into designing and specifying a DMF to deal with harmonic(not just dynamic!) imbalance, A lwfw is less that 1/3 the cost of a DMF. Considering the budget constraints  the 986 program had, why did they use a DMF?The car drives perfectly well with a solid flywheel -for a while at least.

 

Without a DMF how will you deal with harmonic imbalance ? No, a conventional flywheel, light or otherwise does not compensate for harmonic imbalance.That is why engineers invented the Harmonic Balancer - notably absent from the M96.

Without dismantling the engine to balance all parts of the rotating mass(particularly the crankshaft and rods)how will an unbalanced lwfw compensate ?

JFP has answered the "well what happens if you fit a LWFW and so has Raby. I urge anyone considering this mod to evaluate the issue carefully.

Just promise to share the consequences so we improve our knowledge base.

And good luck with it - the benefits are great -it is the unintended consequences I cringe at.

Edited by Schnell Gelb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will keep everyone abreast of the goings on with my engine.  I probably already have at least 60,000 (20,000 on the Boxster before a Lincoln Continental smooshed it, and 40k on the Carerra before divorce got that one, as far as I know, its still running fine)  miles on these other two cars with no issues.

 

I'm kind of surprised by the doom and gloom.

 

clutches????  anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Mech Eng I find posts like #9 difficult. I am not disputing anecdotal experience.

For anyone thinking of ignoring all the engineering brainpower and experience that goes into designing and specifying a DMF to deal with harmonic(not just dynamic!) imbalance, A lwfw is less that 1/3 the cost of a DMF. Considering the budget constraints  the 986 program had, why did they use a DMF?The car drives perfectly well with a solid flywheel -for a while at least.

 

Without a DMF how will you deal with harmonic imbalance ? No, a conventional flywheel, light or otherwise does not compensate for harmonic imbalance.That is why engineers invented the Harmonic Balancer - notably absent from the M96.

Without dismantling the engine to balance all parts of the rotating mass(particularly the crankshaft and rods)how will an unbalanced lwfw compensate ?

 

Questions and concerns like yours are always welcome.

 

The cost of the DMF is driven by the limited sources of supply and the relatively small numbers of these engines on the road when compared to something from say Honda or GM.  When a manufacturer makes fewer of anything, they have less units to spread fixed costs over, and the parts end up becoming pricey when middleman and retail markups get added in.  The result is a heavy iron  DMF that costs nearly $1K at retail, which is ridiculous, but it is what we end up with.

 

For those that question Porsche's position on this subject, here is a excerpt from one of several bulletins on the subject of using single mass flywheels in place of the DMF, specifically when using a single mass unit from and RS engine, which is subject to much more stringent engine balancing criteria on a non RS engine:

 

627108d1291833248-gt3-with-light-weight-

 

Over the years, there has been considerable speculation about why the DMF was used.  The most common opinion is that is was a packaging decision to add the dampening in the bell housing (where there is considerable room) rather than put the dampening mass at the front of the engine as most manufacturer's do.  While there is considerable room in front of the crank on a 986, you need to remember that the same engine is used in the 996, but facing the other way around with the crank snout  much closer to structural members and the like in the back of the car (something that anyone that has changed water pumps on both a Boxster and a 996 can appreciate).  Not wanting to have two different systems for these models, they came up with one solution that would work in both cases, saving a lot of money in the process:

 

                       post-18-0-42809800-1437255339_thumb.jpg         

 

The two most common ways of dealing with dampening on these cars has been to rebalance the rotating assembly and lightweight flywheels (which is obviously not realistic for everyone), or use an after market front pulley assembly which has a dampening system built into it (this one happens to be for a 3.8L. but they also make other models as well):

 

rss_608_99738lpulleykit_2-1.jpg

 

These seem to help with the issue, but their size creates an entirely new set of problems to deal with (even on a Boxster, it is easier to fit one of these to the engine while it is out of the car).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm kind of surprised by the doom and gloom.

 

 

 

It is not "doom and gloom", we simply answer technical questions to the best of our abilities based upon our knowledge and direct experience on the subject.  We don't make the news, we simply report it; and we don't sugar coat anything in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a Mech Eng I find posts like #9 difficult. I am not disputing anecdotal experience.

For anyone thinking of ignoring all the engineering brainpower and experience that goes into designing and specifying a DMF to deal with harmonic(not just dynamic!) imbalance, A lwfw is less that 1/3 the cost of a DMF. Considering the budget constraints  the 986 program had, why did they use a DMF?The car drives perfectly well with a solid flywheel -for a while at least.

 

Without a DMF how will you deal with harmonic imbalance ? No, a conventional flywheel, light or otherwise does not compensate for harmonic imbalance.That is why engineers invented the Harmonic Balancer - notably absent from the M96.

Without dismantling the engine to balance all parts of the rotating mass(particularly the crankshaft and rods)how will an unbalanced lwfw compensate ?

 

Questions and concerns like yours are always welcome.

 

The cost of the DMF is driven by the limited sources of supply and the relatively small numbers of these engines on the road when compared to something from say Honda or GM.  When a manufacturer makes fewer of anything, they have less units to spread fixed costs over, and the parts end up becoming pricey when middleman and retail markups get added in.  The result is a heavy iron  DMF that costs nearly $1K at retail, which is ridiculous, but it is what we end up with.

 

For those that question Porsche's position on this subject, here is a excerpt from one of several bulletins on the subject of using single mass flywheels in place of the DMF, specifically when using a single mass unit from and RS engine, which is subject to much more stringent engine balancing criteria on a non RS engine:

 

627108d1291833248-gt3-with-light-weight-

 

Over the years, there has been considerable speculation about why the DMF was used.  The most common opinion is that is was a packaging decision to add the dampening in the bell housing (where there is considerable room) rather than put the dampening mass at the front of the engine as most manufacturer's do.  While there is considerable room in front of the crank on a 986, you need to remember that the same engine is used in the 996, but facing the other way around with the crank snout  much closer to structural members and the like in the back of the car (something that anyone that has changed water pumps on both a Boxster and a 996 can appreciate).  Not wanting to have two different systems for these models, they came up with one solution that would work in both cases, saving a lot of money in the process:

 

                       attachicon.gifpulley clearance.jpg         

 

The two most common ways of dealing with dampening on these cars has been to rebalance the rotating assembly and lightweight flywheels (which is obviously not realistic for everyone), or use an after market front pulley assembly which has a dampening system built into it (this one happens to be for a 3.8L. but they also make other models as well):

 

rss_608_99738lpulleykit_2-1.jpg

 

These seem to help with the issue, but their size creates an entirely new set of problems to deal with (even on a Boxster, it is easier to fit one of these to the engine while it is out of the car).

 

Thanks JFP.  I actually know Mike at RSS.  They're walking distance from my office.  I'm gonna get some input from him.   

 

B

Edited by 2000GotBoxS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been sitting hear thinking about this whole issue, and my experiences so far, which have been very good, although, granted, I haven't had any IMS issues either, and that doesn't mean that others haven't.

 

What bothers me about this whole discussion is I don't quite understand how/why a flywheel, bolted to the back of an engine that is, "from the factory, OUT OF BALANCE" actually remedy that situation?  It doesn't help that engine "balance" itself.  It may help to stop the out of balance issue from radiating into your hand on the shifter, or maybe even the seat of your pants, but, it certainly isn't going to make that engine suddenly become balanced.

 

Any thoughts on that?  It doesn't make any sense to me at all.  Even with a DMF, you have a significant amount of unsprung weight solidly bolted to the back of the crank.  In fact, much more weight than a LWFW has.  It would be my thinking that a DMF could be more detrimental to the engine itself than a LWFW could.   The part that is sprung is not bolted to the crank, AND, is the lighter third of the DMF, thus stopping the out of balance from traveling downstream to the gear shifter your hand is holding.

 

Upon searching the internet, every single thread that mentioned this goes back to the same old "flat6innovations" website.  Clearly, they are preaching to folks with more dollars than sense.

 

Can someone explain this to me, and maybe dummy it down, so I can understand it.  How does the DMF balance the core of this unbalanced Porsche engine, and not merely stop it from radiating to my body inside the car through the driveline?  

 

Mechanically looking at both setups, to me, its clear the Porsche used the DMF to stop transfer of vibration to the cabin, and that's it.

 

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked why ?

I used to work in Engineering for a European OEM. Sometimes I don't understand why contributors like JFP or Raby say some obscure things. I have learned they are invariably correct because they have been involved in this subject deeply for many years.They have also been successful at it. I have huge respect for people who build a business based on their knowledge and experience.That I humbly concede is more significant in these situations than my academic or technical knowledge.

To understand harmonic and dynamic balance would take many hours of tuition to Engineers with lots of basic engineering knowledge .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been sitting hear thinking about this whole issue, and my experiences so far, which have been very good, although, granted, I haven't had any IMS issues either, and that doesn't mean that others haven't.

 

What bothers me about this whole discussion is I don't quite understand how/why a flywheel, bolted to the back of an engine that is, "from the factory, OUT OF BALANCE" actually remedy that situation?  It doesn't help that engine "balance" itself.  It may help to stop the out of balance issue from radiating into your hand on the shifter, or maybe even the seat of your pants, but, it certainly isn't going to make that engine suddenly become balanced.

 

Any thoughts on that?  It doesn't make any sense to me at all.  Even with a DMF, you have a significant amount of unsprung weight solidly bolted to the back of the crank.  In fact, much more weight than a LWFW has.  It would be my thinking that a DMF could be more detrimental to the engine itself than a LWFW could.   The part that is sprung is not bolted to the crank, AND, is the lighter third of the DMF, thus stopping the out of balance from traveling downstream to the gear shifter your hand is holding.

 

Upon searching the internet, every single thread that mentioned this goes back to the same old "flat6innovations" website.  Clearly, they are preaching to folks with more dollars than sense.

 

Can someone explain this to me, and maybe dummy it down, so I can understand it.  How does the DMF balance the core of this unbalanced Porsche engine, and not merely stop it from radiating to my body inside the car through the driveline?  

 

Mechanically looking at both setups, to me, its clear the Porsche used the DMF to stop transfer of vibration to the cabin, and that's it.

 

thoughts?

 

Simple:  The DMF, while heavy, is reasonably well balanced within itself, often within one or two grams of being perfect. It also consists of two large masses, separated from each other by springs and elastomer, which allow harmonic, torsional, or dynamic imbalance related forces to be dampened and absorbed.  Replace that DMF with a single mass flywheel, lightweight or even a heavy one, which is often much more unbalanced itself, and has absolutely no dampening capabilities, and those same force pulses have to go somewhere else.  And in the M96/97, it tends to be into the crank shaft as a torsional pulse load.  Over time, that leads to cracking, and eventually to failure.

 

As for Flat6Innovations, it is the website of Jake Raby.  While Jake's personality may not be everyone's cup of tea, you have to respect the body of work he has done over the years with these engines.  His shop has rewritten the book (literally) on the M96/97 engine, producing some of the highest output and nearly bullet proof versions of these engines.  He has developed components, tooling, and procedure's to prevent premature failure of these engine's, often accomplishing improvements that the factory say were not possible, and he even runs an educational program to help shop techs (including some Porsche dealers) learn how to help car owner's get the maximum out of the money they spent on these vehicles.  So while he may seem a bit mercurial, he probably has taken apart more of these engine's after they failed than anyone else in the country.  In general, because he works only on these engines, he is often in possession of critical technical information concerning failure points well ahead of other shops which may only be just beginning to recognize the same problem out in the field.  So while many may not like him, you do need to listen to him; I have never seen his opinions proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I had some long discussions with a few people, that are definitely in the know, and that have personally witnessed the usage of the Aasco Flywheels in hundreds of Porsches, and they've all been OK.  If anyone is interested in hearing what they have to say, contact me offline, and I will share their experiences.  It appears that most of this information about the M96 engines flying apart all comes from one source only from what I have found, they all reference back to the same sight as referenced here.  But, there are many many successful applications out there too.  I can personally attest to 60,000 miles of success already across two different cars.

 

Nobody has given me any real science except to say, trust this guy, or trust that guy.  I don't want to be a source for anymore info getting out there on the web bagging on these products when my original intent was to find an upgraded clutch to run, not to provide another platform that links to a webpage from 10 years ago.  So, I'll just leave this one alone and say, send me a PM if you want some success stories, because they're out there too, and they're from some of the sources mentioned above.

 

Maybe start with the LUK website (manufacturers of the DMF in the Porsches) where they themselves talk about the reasons for developing the DMF in the first place, as a way of dampening driveline vibrations from reaching the driver, in other words, driver comfort, not saving a poorly designed Porsche motor from flying apart.    http://www.luk.de/content.luk.de/en/products/clutch_systems_new/zms_new/zms_new.jsp

 

I will however continue to share my experiences as I add to my 100k miles on my Boxster S with Lightened Flywheel, because I will have firsthand knowledge, and everything else I would post of success stories would be secondhand, told to me by others, much like the info above, and I don't want to do that.

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, I hope your install is as successful as your previous ones.

To others who may be interested in the subject :

http://986forum.com/forums/performance-technical-chat/20622-aasco-flywheel-here-2.html

AGAIN, this is THE ONLY PERSON that talks about this failure.  Its from 8-10 years ago.  Those folks SELL COMPLETE REBUILT ENGINES.  You cannot even buy anything from them except a completely rebuild engine for multiples of tens of thousands of dollars.  Try and get some of these great innovations from them, and they'll tell you...... "all our engineered parts find their ways into our completely rebuilt motors, we stopped selling individual components many years ago."  If I sold only completely rebuilt engines, I'd probably say the same thing.

 

It amazes me that so so so many people that have no experience keep on sending out the same stuff from 8 to 10 years ago.

 

Like I said, I have a list of success stories, and if anyone wants to hear them, PM me.  I cannot personally verify what they say is true, so, I'm not going to link it.  I wish everyone else would do the same.  Heresay, and links don't help any of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is starting to look like an "oil" discussion.

Both points have been made - let's not make this personal or a flame war. Each person makes their own decisions.

Let's just leave it there before someone says something they regret.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.