Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Performance and Technical Chat

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-13-2009, 05:28 AM   #1
Registered User
 
edevlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 916
Interesting stuff, I sure like learning more about our engines. In my case I have almost 3 years and 40K on my Aasco lightweight flywheel, and I love the driving experience with it, engine and car are much more responsive.

I did not think much of it at the time, but right after it was installed, it did seem to me that there was a bit more vibration comming from the engine compared to the factory flywheel, another subjective data point for the discussion.

As I said, I really like the performance of the car with the lightweight flywheel, but I must say, if I had known back then what I know now about the harmonic balancing function of the flywheel, I pretty sure I would have kept the unit stock, live and learn.....


:dance:
__________________
My Car Webpage

2000 2.7L Boxster 102K; TTP intake, headers, high-flow cats; Dansk high-flow muffler; Autothority ECU chip; TechnoTorque 2; Bilstein coilovers; Racing Dynamics strut brace; stress-bar suspension kit; Aasco lightweight flywheel, B&M short shiftkit; 18" wheels; spare tire delete; OEM GT3 seats; JL audio speakers and subwoofer; Alpine PDX-5/PDX-2 amps; Kenwood DNX8120 CD/DVD/Nav; litronics, deambered
edevlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 06:18 AM   #2
Registered User
 
JAAY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: shoreham, ny
Posts: 1,619
Calling my Porsche buddy to see how much a stocker is. But. Why did my other go within 4k miles?
__________________
996 3.4 engine with 2.7 986 5speed transmission
Ebay Headers, Fabspeed high flow cats, JIC Cross, IPD Plenum, H&R Coilovers, B&M Short Shifter, AEM Uego Gauge Type Analog, Apexi S-AFC Select, 987 air box, Litronics, 2000 Tails and side markers, painted center console, 18" 987 S-Wheels, GT3 Front bumper with splitter.
JAAY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2009, 02:52 PM   #3
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Ummn, what do you think the components feel if they are screaming that way just at idle?
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2009, 03:35 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 730
Just wanted to chime in and say thanks for a very informative (and civil!) discussion.
__________________
2003 Boxster - Sold but not forgotten
timothy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2009, 09:32 AM   #5
Registered User
 
jaykay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 2,668
LWFW to prevent RMS/engine damage

Just curious as to whether anybody knows whether a light fly wheel could mitigate crankshaft and RMS damage by reducing the overhung weight at the back of the crankshaft. I would think the DMFW at 40 lbs, slightly unbalanced, on a slightly untrue crank could cause undue crank shaft deflection resulting in RMS damage and leaks. I would think by the time you have an RMS leak you already have engine damage.

I was thinking of a LWFW just to prevent this scenario but I am just learning about all the negatives associated with it. I have a very low mileage engine (m96) that I would like to make reliable.

What flywheel would I use to be safe? Do I need a clutch to go along with it? It is not a race car so I would like to keep it as streetable as possible. What are the risks? Will a dynamic balance problem be caused?

Thanks,

jaykay
jaykay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2009, 10:02 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 147
It's questionable to put a lightweight flywheel on the engine without some sort of harmonic balancing to offset the loss of the dual mass flywheel. I have had many phone calls from individuals and shops alike with broken crankshafts, attributed to lightweight flywheels and it's bad enough that Porsche issued a TSB that use of a lightweight flywheel will void the warranty, likely due to harmonics I would imagine. It's been touched upon in this thread and I highly doubt that a reduction in mass would fix the RMS issue. Engines with multiple RMS failures are indicative of a larger problem - drooping of the crankshaft carrier in the crankcase.
__________________
Charles Navarro
President, LN Engineering and Bilt Racing Service
http://www.LNengineering.com
Home of Nickies, IMS Retrofit, and IMS Solution
cnavarro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2009, 10:46 PM   #7
Registered User
 
jaykay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 2,668
Thanks Charles. I was not aware of the crank carrier issue and have never seen the internals of these engines. That big heavy DMFW hanging off the end of the crank right beside the RMS got me wondering.....

I would like to keep my 2000 3.2 from ever developing problems if I can..

Take care
jaykay is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page