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 08-02-2010, 10:36 AM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 211
Why doesn't anyone make a near-normal weight single mass flywheel?

Hey all,

Just wondering if this has ever come up:

Seems like the stock dual-mass flywheel is a poor fit for these cars. It wears out faster than it's lifespan due to the low-mileage these cars receive (for the most part) and the fact that it's the damping material that's wearing out.

Since the clutch is sprung, it seems to me like the best aftermarket solution would be for someone to make a near-normal weight single-mass flywheel. Normal weight being close to the dual-mass flywheel (you wouldn't need it to be identical to maintain the same level of drivability, since some of the DM flywheel's weight comes from the damping packs)

This is not a super complicated design, wouldn't require any additional fabrication, and should be a high-profit item since the stock flywheel is near $800 and we're talking about replacing it with a piece of (high-quality, tight tolerance) machined metal.

Thanks all,

Joe

JoeFromPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 12:16 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: It's a kind of magic.....
Posts: 6,261
Very simple: Like light weight single mass flywheels, a single mass standard weight flywheel would probably lead to problems elsewhere, most likely internally to the engine. The dual mass flywheel is not a substitute for the springs in the clutch; it absorbs and dampens vibration and harmonics inside the engine, mostly the crankshaft. The springs in the clutch disc absorbs shocks in the drive line (transmission, axels). They are not doing the same job, and removing the dual mass flywheel without thoroughly rebalancing the engine internals could lead to serious issues…………….
__________________
Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.” - Albert Einstein
JFP in PA is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 07:12 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 211
I understand the concepts; they are blanket statements thrown over a situation. Let me provide some examples:

...

In 2005-2006, Subaru used a dual-mass flywheel on the same year Legacy GT models in 5-speed format. In 2007-2009, they switched to a single-mass.

This is a straight bolt-on application, albeit with a different clutch to fit the face of the new flywheel. They did not re-balance the internals, and the single-mass was a few pounds lighter.

How do I know? Because Subaru offers the 07+ single mass flywheel as a bolt-on replacement choice (with the 07+ clutch) for this engine/transmission combo.

...

Single-mass flywheels are used in a huge variety of automotive applications known as "smooth". They are commonplace. The concern with vibrations and harmonics when switching is:

1. When someone goes to a racing-style application of a lightweight flywheel.

2. If something is poorly engineered.

Single-mass flywheels by themselves, especially when made "heavy" (usually 25+ pounds), dampen vibrations and harmonics just fine.

...

Last example: A flywheel's mass and location of mass is not a precision instrument to perfectly balance internal harmonics. How do I know?

1. Because flywheels, by their nature, receive wear over time. As long as their surfaces remain smooth and true, they balance out fine.

2. Single-mass flywheels routinely receive resurfacing, which involves the removal of mass/weight. If a shift of a few ounces mattered, this would not be a suitable action.


...

I could go on. I'm not an engine builder nor do I develop parts for cars. My knowledge of cars tells me that a single mass flywheel of similar weight and with proper design would be a simple solution to allow Porsche owners to stop worrying about dual-mass flywheels wearing out.
JoeFromPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:35 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: It's a kind of magic.....
Posts: 6,261
Judging by the number of torsional stress related failures observed on otherwise stock M96 engines by going to single mass flywheels, I would say it was poor value for the money…..
__________________
Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.” - Albert Einstein
JFP in PA is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 11:23 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 211
JFP - Can you elaborate or provide a link? I did about 10 minutes of searching and found nothing (except issues on chatter, which is normal with LW flywheels).

Also, since oneof the boxster's issues is supposedly due to a heavy-ass flywheel hung off one side and not enough support on the other, I'd think that a bit less mass would be preferable....
JoeFromPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 11:26 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by sppmo
Joe - maybe it has to do with the flat-six engine design? I don't think anyone here would have a better answer than the folks at Stuttgart. I wonder if you can mail them the question? I've have never tried to me mail Porsche. Has anyone else?
I doubt it. I know of no reason why that would effect it, and Porsche also used single-mass flywheels up through ~1989ish....not sure exactly when they switched...
JoeFromPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 01:13 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: It's a kind of magic.....
Posts: 6,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFromPA
JFP - Can you elaborate or provide a link? I did about 10 minutes of searching and found nothing (except issues on chatter, which is normal with LW flywheels).

Also, since oneof the boxster's issues is supposedly due to a heavy-ass flywheel hung off one side and not enough support on the other, I'd think that a bit less mass would be preferable....
In general, reducing the flywheel mass would offer some benefits (e.g.: quicker revving). Problem is that the dual mass unit acts as a harmonics dampener, absorbing some of the torsional forces on the crankshaft, reducing cracking tendencies. We have encountered problems on M96’s running single mass wheels with out any additional dampening (adding the GT3 dampened front pulley, complete harmonic re-balance of the engine, etc.) The magazine “European Car” did an article about DMF setups about 3 years back, but (if memory serves) the individual with the most data on the subject is Jake Raby (Flat Six Innovations), who probably knows more about the M96 than anyone out there. From one of his postings (concerning using a light weight single mass flywheel on the M96):
Installing this flywheel removes ALL harmonic dampening of your engine and transaxle..

One person has recently broken a crank... He didn't listen to me when I told him what caused his issue more than likely, so he reinstalled the same flywheel on his new crate engine. Two events later I got another phone call from him stating that he had broken another crankshaft and he should have listened to me. He is now on engine #3 and is broke, so broke that he is having to make one engine from 3 broken cores..

Another engine (2.7 DE car) had a knock, it was pulled apart and had a cracked and breaking crank.. When I threw the assembly for this engine onto the balancer it was immediately 10 grams out of balance, when the pressure plate was added that went to 19 grams and the flywheel was nearly new and had never been touched..

Both of these are in addition to the X51 engine that snapped a crank in half last year, also using a LWFW... There have been two other instances of similar consequence that people have contacted me about since the new year, but I did not see their parts first hand.

Harmonics have to go somewhere... The dual mass was utilized for a reason-Components that are forced to absorb them won't like it.. And it appears that these harmonics also end up being sensed by the knock sensors as possible detonation, so then the ECU retards timing and that reduces HP. I have gathered data that proves that these harmonics that can't be absorbed are directly related to reductions in net power, as much as 5HP in one instance from my test car.

Balance and harmonics are two different things... Sure an engine thats out of balance will have more harmonics, but even an engine thats perfectly balanced will still have harmonics that need to be absorbed..

The dual mass flywheel and it's dampening characteristics help to absorb these harmonics, the LWFW does not have any dampening capability because it has no second mass separated from the primary mass by absorption material.

Consider the fact that the dual mass flywheels that do fail may be failing because they are actually doing their job!! A flywheel is a wear item, it is a component that is designed to be disposed of after it's job is complete... A crankshaft is not a disposable item and if not absorbed somehow, somewhere these harmonics will find the weakest link and thats when things break.

With the M96 everything is rigid once the dual mass is removed, that means the harmonics from the engine, transaxle, CV joints and even the axle bearings are all going upstream directly to the crankshaft.

When the mass of a dynamic assembly changes as radically as it does when a LWFW replaces a DMFW the plane of balance must be compensated for, that means even if the flywheel that is placed onto the engine is perfectly balanced, when coupled to the rest of the dynamic assembly it will be imbalanced if the plane is not corrected.

The only way to do this is with the engine disassembled in a balance machine like mine. Thats why I refuse to install a LWFW onto any engine unless I am creating it's engine from scratch and can ensure the unit is balanced as a complete dynamic assembly then indexed for reassembly.

FWIW I have yet to see a single LWFW that has ANY balance marks on it brand new out of the box. Every unit I have spun up has had imbalance that exceeds my tolerance threshold...

When the second mass is removed where do those harmonics go?????
Raby comment
__________________
Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.” - Albert Einstein

Last edited by JFP in PA; 08-03-2010 at 01:16 PM.
JFP in PA is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 03:20 PM   #8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Depends on the day of the week....
Posts: 1,400
Engine harmonics. There's a reason why I'm running an RSS dampened front crank pulley on my engine with an AASCO flywheel.

I'm not sure I'd recommend a light flywheel on any of these engines that hasn't been dynamically balanced, and definitely not without some form of dampened crank pulley (either factory M97 3.8 or aftermarket).
__________________
Boxster S
Cloudsurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 08:55 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,843
[QUOTE=Cloudsurfer]Engine harmonics. There's a reason why I'm running an RSS dampened front crank pulley on my engine with an AASCO flywheel.

Cloud,

How long ago did you installed yours?

I called RSS a couple of months ago inquiring for a dampened front crank pulley for the Cayman and they told me that the only one they offer was for the GT3 or (911..?)

I was planning to install the AASCO LWFW but also wanted the dampened front pulley, how do you like your combo..?

I am currently using the BBI pulley (non dampening)
Gilles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:08 PM   #10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Depends on the day of the week....
Posts: 1,400
[QUOTE=Gilles]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudsurfer
Engine harmonics. There's a reason why I'm running an RSS dampened front crank pulley on my engine with an AASCO flywheel.

Cloud,

How long ago did you installed yours?

I called RSS a couple of months ago inquiring for a dampened front crank pulley for the Cayman and they told me that the only one they offer was for the GT3 or (911..?)

I was planning to install the AASCO LWFW but also wanted the dampened front pulley, how do you like your combo..?

I am currently using the BBI pulley (non dampening)
I've got a few thousand on the motor with the AASCO and RSS pulley. Hasn't blown up yet and drives great
__________________
Boxster S
Cloudsurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:24 AM   #11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 211
JFP -

Thanks so much. That is exactly the type of information I was looking for...

I'm guessing that Porsche uses a metallurgy in their crankshaft that allows them to break under such stresses. This isn't a criticism; they designed the crank to be used with a specific flywheel and provide longevity.

Perhaps it is the specific application of a solid-mass aluminum+steel flywheel that's less than 1/2 the weight of the stock dual-mass flywheel on this particular crankshaft....I haven't seen/heard cranks breaking as even a concern when switching back and forth between single mass/dual-mass on an otherwise stock rotating assembly.

Reading Jake's comments, I understand now why a vendor hasn't chosen to develop a 25+ pound single-mass flywheel for these engines. It's just not a choice they want to entertain, given the available options.
JoeFromPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:58 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Depends on the day of the week....
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFromPA
JFP -

Thanks so much. That is exactly the type of information I was looking for...

I'm guessing that Porsche uses a metallurgy in their crankshaft that allows them to break under such stresses. This isn't a criticism; they designed the crank to be used with a specific flywheel and provide longevity.

Perhaps it is the specific application of a solid-mass aluminum+steel flywheel that's less than 1/2 the weight of the stock dual-mass flywheel on this particular crankshaft....I haven't seen/heard cranks breaking as even a concern when switching back and forth between single mass/dual-mass on an otherwise stock rotating assembly.

Reading Jake's comments, I understand now why a vendor hasn't chosen to develop a 25+ pound single-mass flywheel for these engines. It's just not a choice they want to entertain, given the available options.

This isn't a problem that only affects Porsches. Any engine crankshaft is prone to failure from harmonics if those harmonics excite the crank at any of its resonant frequencies. Plenty of kids have learned this the hard way by removing the harmonically damped crank pulleys on cars and replacing it with an un-damped, underdrive pulley with disastrous results.

For that matter, it's not just internal combustion engine crankshafts that are prone to this. Many aircraft turbine engines have specific speeds (which are only seen during start up/ shut down on most engines) that absolutely have to avoided, as they are the resonant frequency speeds of the shaft. This can be a problem during a "hung start," when, if the pilot does not abort the start sequence, the engine could be left at one of these critical RPMs for longer than the time it takes to simply "spin through" it on the way up or down, with very severe consequences.

It is worth noting, however, that the cranks in these engines are NOT forged.

For whatever reason, Porsche chose to not utilize a harmonic damper on these engines, at least until the M97 3.8 came out, and thus the dual mass flywheel is of critical importance.

On most cars, this isn't a huge deal as the car already has a harmonic damper on the other end of the crank.

I'm of the opinion that you CAN run a single mass flywheel IF you put some damping back into the equation with a dampened front pulley. If the engine is internally balanced that's obviously a huge benefit which will lessen the loads that need to be damped in the first place.

As to making a "heavy" single mass flywheel, there would be absolutely no reason to bother. If you want a heavy flywheel, keep the stock dual mass. If you want a single mass flywheel, it may as well be lighter and enhance the free-revving capabilities of the car.
__________________
Boxster S
Cloudsurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 08:44 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 211
Hey Cloud,

Thanks for your response. Perhaps my experiences lie in engines that are harmonically balanced elsewhere, perhaps not.

As to your statement, "As to making a "heavy" single mass flywheel, there would be absolutely no reason to bother. If you want a heavy flywheel, keep the stock dual mass. If you want a single mass flywheel, it may as well be lighter and enhance the free-revving capabilities of the car."

My original thought was that alot of boxsters get 5-10k a year on them in terms of mileage. A flywheel on a car driven such yearly distances in a normal driving scenario (i.e. few long high rpm clutch slipping events) should last a very long time. And, if it's single-mass, could be re-surfaced and last indefinitely.

Instead, from what I can tell, we see boxsters with fine clutches but flywheels that are out-of-spec or no longer engage right because their damping mechanisms are wearing out from age.

So my thought was: Why not create a similarly weighted single-mass flywheel so that boxsters that accumulate normal-driving mileage at a low rate can expect a normal lifespan from their clutch/flywheels once they replace the OEM unit.

Sounds like it's still possible, but would need to be paired with some additional dampening mechanisms.

JoeFromPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page