Hi guys,
Just reading on an earlier posting about changing the 3.8 dual mass flywheel/clutch to a 3.6 single flywheel/clutch.
I can see the advantages to be had in acceleration and throttle response due to reduced weight but surely this great lump of spinning mass equates to the torque produced and would therefore require more "stirring" of the gear lever mid-range?
The difference may be minimal, I may be wrong, just a thought.
Hi guys,
Just reading on an earlier posting about changing the 3.8 dual mass flywheel/clutch to a 3.6 single flywheel/clutch.
I can see the advantages to be had in acceleration and throttle response due to reduced weight but surely this great lump of spinning mass equates to the torque produced and would therefore require more "stirring" of the gear lever mid-range?
The difference may be minimal, I may be wrong, just a thought.
I don`t know, I`m having this work done in one weeks time so we`ll see....
But what I understand, the 3,6 cars aren`t that bad in the mid range and the have less effect so I except the difference to be acceptable.
Sakke
__________________
"You can´t afford cheap things if you´re poor"
Just speaking to a friend of mine about the "clutch thing" and he mentioned that if the 3.6 can get away with having a single mass flywheel and not suffer for it then the 3.8 would not either, after all it does have an extra 200cc to make up the torque loss if any.
I would be interested to read your views on this Sakke when you have your conversion carried out and any feelings on performance gains and pick up.
...l it does have an extra 200cc to make up the torque loss if any.
I wish the myth of torque loss would die already.
BMW owners are smart enough to ask themselves, "how could that be?" It can't... flywheels don't generate torque. Your car will have more power and torque with a light flywheel.
KILL THE MYTH! - there is no loss of torque with a lightweight flywheel.
BMW owners are smart enough to ask themselves, "how could that be?" It can't... flywheels don't generate torque. Your car will have more power and torque with a light flywheel.
KILL THE MYTH! - there is no loss of torque with a lightweight flywheel.
I guess the only thing you may notice is a slight decrease in engine breaking over the larger dual mass setup.
Does the 3.6 clutch wear any quicker Rob?
Best
M5 Powered
__________________
1995 M5 Limited Edition (02/50)Rosso Red
Pilot Sport 2 Rubber
Valentine One With Conceal
Twin Head LRC100 IR Jammer System
Origin Blue B2 GPS
Good pictures Rob. In the case that performance is improved in the way you describe, why did M Gmbh use a heavier, dual-mass wheel? It can't be because of cost...
I guess the only thing you may notice is a slight decrease in engine breaking over the larger dual mass setup.
No, not really.
Might also be because I don't use engine braking much... $70 brake pads are cheaper than a $7000 engine.
Quote:
Does the 3.6 clutch wear any quicker Rob?
Considering that it's the exact same size and materials as the 3.8l clutch, there isn't any reason for it to wear any quicker. If anything, less quickly because you don't have that pig of a dual-mas flywheel causing slippage.
Good pictures Rob. In the case that performance is improved in the way you describe, why did M Gmbh use a heavier, dual-mass wheel? It can't be because of cost...
I had one automotive engineer say something to me like (paraphrasing here), "sometimes engineers run out of useful things to do and diddle around to keep their jobs."
My theory is that in the continuing "Honda-ization" of BMW, the dual-mass unit was installed to make it easier for any numb-foot driver to move the car without stalling it, and to make it a bit quieter.
You shouldn't really notice any increased gear rattle (What's gear rattle? Click here.) with the 5-speed as that transmission was originally used with the single-mass flywheel. However, the 6-speed does have some. Of course, it's only present in neutral with the clutch let out and you cannot hear it with the windows closed, yet some find it objectionable (future Lexus buyers). I don't mind it at all, it's one of the "performance noises" that the last of the classic big-6 cylinder M cars has as a charcter-enhancing trait.
My theory is that in the continuing "Honda-ization" of BMW, the dual-mass unit was installed to make it easier for any numb-foot driver to move the car without stalling it, and to make it a bit quieter.
A heavy flywheel makes stalling harder, which is a benefit to a driver unused to a heavy car.
A racecar needs no creature comforts, the lighter the flywheel within reason, the better. If the racecar driver stalls, better get a new racerdriver!!
For road use, I understood that a heavier flywheel effectively dampens the harsh power "bursts" as each cylinder detonates and produces a surge, as the heavier mass is harder to spin up, so each surge is delivered over a fractionally longer period.
A dual mass flywheel if memory serves is the weight/mass split over two bits'o'metal that are linked with a set of hard springs, so one drags the other around and vice-versa, further dampening the power surges.
The upshot is that this dampening is felt as a smoother engine. That was the goal of doing it, to add a little extra refinement.
Ivan.
__________________
"Never enter Karussell when on the brakes! I have gone round there on the roof, I know what I'm talking about." ~ Sabine Schmitz
Clutch Upgrade 3.8-3.6?
Linear Mode
