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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2013, 03:25 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Saw76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Cruz , California
Posts: 14
Garage
Talking Aasco and what?

So I have a 2000 Boxster normal. Im about to embark on some much needed maintenance. Hopefully you guys can lead me in the right direction. I'm about to do The IMS, new light-weight flywheel and clutch. Ive read and searched on here and other forums but cant seem to find the best parts to match up with this Aasco flywheel. So I'm asking here. What clutch or kit do you recommend for the least chatter and best performance and reliability. Part number and links are appreciated also. Thank you guys for always being here with your opinions and input.
Saw
Saw76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 03:29 PM   #2
Theoretical propagandist
 
Eric G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 793
Garage
The light weight flywheel has inherent risks to your motor. The heavier flywheel is designed to counterbalance the M96 motor. If you plan on keeping this car as a daily driver for the long haul, you are asking for problems. You are not going to gain any appreciable power by going with this modification.
__________________
When life throws you curves, aim for the apex...
Eric G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 03:35 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Saw76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Cruz , California
Posts: 14
Garage
I keep hearing this Eric, I've even had back and forth Private messages with Jake Raby. Im really starting to think maybe you guys are all right. Maybe I shouldn't get the fly. Thanks Eric.
Saw76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 03:50 PM   #4
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
I see no benefits from them and in the history of my engine program we have utilized them only on 3 occasions.. I have removed dozens of them from existing engines, however.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 04:21 PM   #5
Registered User
 
The Radium King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,887
less rotating mass so revs faster, but no addnl power once spinning. lightens car by a few pounds. good for track applications where your engine is always one bad shift away from the grave, but hard to rationalise the risk/benefit ratio for street use.

Last edited by The Radium King; 01-05-2013 at 04:29 PM.
The Radium King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 04:27 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Johnny Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,809
Garage
Yes on the IMSB retrofit. A big no on the light weight fly wheel.
__________________
Don't worry … I've got the microfilm.
Johnny Danger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 04:40 PM   #7
Certified Boxster Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,421
I have put over 30,000 miles on my LWFW with no problems. Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't really know, but it is what it is. Car is my daily driver and it sees 25+ track days a year. Engine runs perfect with 120,000 miles. I'm not making a recommendation because I am not an expert, just relaying my personal experience. Your mileage (and luck?) may vary.

To answer the OP's question, I used the Sachs sport clutch for use with the LWFW:
Pelican Parts - Product Information: 88-1861-000-017-M410

(orig post said 20K miles, sorry for the typo, actual is over 30,000 miles).
__________________
1999 996 C2 - sold - bought back - sold for more
1997 Spec Boxster BSR #254
1979 911 SC
POC Licensed DE/TT Instructor

Last edited by thstone; 01-06-2013 at 06:48 AM.
thstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 06:59 PM   #8
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
What you don't know is the ignition timing that you are losing... I guess ignorance is bliss, because you never thought about it till now ;-)
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 06:11 AM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Carnation, WA
Posts: 136
Garage
I have used several LWFW in various cars of mine over the past 25 years. Never an issue.

I don't believe the argument that the FW is used to balance the engine ... a flat six like this has perfect primary and secondary balance, that's why they're so smooth. The cars I used LWFW on were inline 4's, and there were no balance or engine longevity issues.

As far as the "no power gain" argument, the car will rev faster IN GEAR in the lower gears, markedly so. I did some calculations before fitting one to my previous car, a Supercharged MR2, and in second gear (think autocross) the lighter flywheel I installed was good for a 6 HP gain. First gear would have been more than that, because the car revs faster in first gear. This was borne out after install by the noticeably improved performance of the car.

Additionally, the car just feels more responsive when the engine responds more eagerly, in gear or out.

All that said, I will not be installing one in my Boxster. I have no plans to autox this car. With the stock flywheel, this is a very easy car to drive, and I have hopes of teaching my wife to (finally) drive a stick shift. The LWFW would make that a pain, they *do* take a little getting used to.

Last edited by grubinski; 01-06-2013 at 06:14 AM.
grubinski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 06:36 AM   #10
Certified Boxster Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
... I guess ignorance is bliss, ...
Yes, you are probably right. Peace brother.
__________________
1999 996 C2 - sold - bought back - sold for more
1997 Spec Boxster BSR #254
1979 911 SC
POC Licensed DE/TT Instructor
thstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 07:00 AM   #11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
Jake, why would it affect the ignition timing, is the crank position sensor off the flywheel?
stephen wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 08:12 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: It's a kind of magic.....
Posts: 5,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen wilson View Post
Jake, why would it affect the ignition timing, is the crank position sensor off the flywheel?
Yes...................
__________________
“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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 08:23 AM   #13
Registered User
 
jsceash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,403
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
What you don't know is the ignition timing that you are losing... I guess ignorance is bliss, because you never thought about it till now ;-)
I don't understand how this would effect engine timing. The fingers the sensor picks up are mounted to motor side of both styles. The fixed portion is then bolted on the crank. The crank to pick up timing can't vary. The spring deadened portion of the DMFW is the friction side. The dynamics of this really looks like they are using the weight to stop gear clatter in the transmission. So like Thstone says using a sprung clutch put the back lash back at bay to some extent. The big difference form an engineering stand point is that the clutch can't supply as much force to the gears so like every video I've heard with an aasco installed there is an increased gear noise at idle and low RPM.
__________________
2003 Black 986. modified for Advanced level HPDE and open track days.
* 3.6L LN block, 06 heads, Carrillo H rods, IDP with 987 intake, Oil mods, LN IMS. * Spec II Clutch, 3.2L S Spec P-P FW. * D2 shocks, GT3 arms & and links, Spacers front and rear * Weight reduced, No carpet, AC deleted, Remote PS pump, PS pump deleted. Recaro Pole position seats, Brey crouse ext. 5 point harness, NHP sport exhaust
jsceash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:00 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
Jake, let's play nice. There is no need to push back quite so hard.

Thanks

BL
__________________
Rich Belloff

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:55 AM   #15
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen wilson View Post
Jake, why would it affect the ignition timing, is the crank position sensor off the flywheel?
Thats the reason why you guys don't realize how these LWFW units impact the M96 in so many ways. The same goes for non OEM engine and tranny mounts. Couple these mounts with a LWFW and you have just created a huge compromise.

Anything else I'll say will be intense and strong willed and would be perceived as "pushing back too hard". I'll not say anymore.

FWIW the M96 isn't like most other cars or engines that many have owned or experienced. Treating this engine like it is something else is the first mistake that people make. Thats why they can't learn and make mistakes that they'd never expect. This is the reason why my engine classes are filled with 40 year Porsche veterans that have their asses kicked by these engines and lose their shirt on jobs all the time.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 10:51 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
Jake, I appreciate you're frustrations, but there are people here who would like to learn. A brief explanation of LWFW-related timing and mount issues would be appreciated.
stephen wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 11:22 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: DFW
Posts: 782
Garage
I may have an explanation for the ill effects of the DMF:

Boxster has no harmonic dampener on crank pulley. The Dual-Mass fly wheel serves as a harmonic balancer. By removing the dual mass flywheel and replacing with a single mass, the crankshaft is not harmonically balanced and has excessive vibrations as a result. Even with spring centric hub clutch to mitigate vibrations, it is not as effective as the original application.

I imagine timing could be affected with the system parameters originally designed for the heavy flywheel; all of a sudden compromised be a very light flywheel. I can see why the DMF is controversial - the concerns have merit, but there's no need for such vitriol on these forums.
Kenny Boxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:40 AM   #18
Carnut
 
AndyA6's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 774
Hmmmm, so many discussions regarding the LWFW.....

In my '90 Carrera 2 I had an RS flywheel which -if I remember correctly- was no dual mass and way lighter, super fun to drive. I guess in those engines it is not a problem.

On the other hand, if someone wants to kill an engine rapidly try a LWFW in an inline 6 like BMW, no bueno!

Not gonna lie, I'd like to use a LWFW in my car but these discussion make me think twice.....
__________________
'14 Boxster
AndyA6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 09:07 AM   #19
Registered User
 
BYprodriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: O.C. CA
Posts: 3,188
Garage
A 4-cycle engine only makes power during 1 of it's cycles, until the next ignition during the next power cycle the engine is slowing down. The flywheel mass helps to maintain momentum until the next ignition firing accelerates the crankshaft faster. The flywheel inertia smooths these variations in rotational speed of the crankshaft. The knock sensors can detect excessive variations in this rotational speed & interpret it as "knock" & signal the DME to retard ignition timing. The "low mass" LWFW is not heavy enough to prevent this from occurring.
I believe this is what Jake Raby was alluding to.
BYprodriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 10:14 AM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
Thanks Pro , that gives me some information that make sense, instead of vague references.
stephen wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
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 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page