Anyone fitted the SVP single mass flywheel to their Cayman?

Anyone fitted the SVP single mass flywheel to their Cayman?

Author
Discussion

Mike_C

Original Poster:

984 posts

191 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
The dual mass flywheel on my 06 Caymans S has given up after just 35,000 miles, and needs to be replaced.

I am seriously considering the single mass flywheel conversion offered by SVP, as featured in 911 & Porsche World last month. Has anyone actually fitted this to their own car? Details here: http://www.specialistvehiclepreparations.com/cayma...

I understand you may get some more low speed vibes through the transmission and will not be able to let the engine labour as much, but that is actually a good thing IMO. On the plus side, there are less moving parts to fail (again), it's lighter which is always good and means less inertia, which should allow the engine to spin up faster too. So, it should be a little less refined but a lot better drive, apparently.

Whatever route I take, I will be replacing the clutch too - prevention is better than cure! If I go with the SVP option I will fit an uprated Sachs clutch, which should retain the standard clutch effort at the pedal end.

Anyway, would be interested if anyone has done this themselves or has any experience with this option.

Cheers,

Mike

tony993

169 posts

184 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
I like the idea of a SM flywheel too. I'm sure the car would be much nicer to drive & I really wouldn't mind the rattle noise that might accompany slow maneuvers (like an 80's 911). However, I think you're on the wrong track with your better reliability theory. Sure, the flywheel won't break, but your old DM flywheel was keeping everything smooth & reducing vibration through your engine. I have read on a technical forum (possibly Pelican Parts - I don't remember) that the rate of engine failures is significantly higher for cars that have been converted to SM.


Matt Seabrook

563 posts

220 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Should be interesting. Don't have any experience of Porsche that has been converted but other makes and have seen broken crank shafts and trashed gearboxes.

Mike_C

Original Poster:

984 posts

191 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
I can't see how a SMF can cause premature engine failure? A DMF is designed to suppress vibrations from the engine through the drivetrain, not the other way round - the gearbox is driven by the engine, so cannot create its own vibrations as such.

I could see the argument for increased driveshaft wear, and potentially more vibrations transmitted through to the gearbox, however this should only be apparent if the car is driven badly, i.e. the engine is put under unnecessary load at low revs, something I don't do anyway, DMF or not.

I believe the 997 GT2 and GT3's have SMF straight from the factory, so I guess they are more suited to a 'hardercore' vehicle but I don't think that's such a bad thing in a standard Cayman anyway, it's always been held back a bit and this might release a bit more of its potential - win win (hopefully)!

Surprised no one else on here has had this done, though?

DoubleSix

10,577 posts

145 months

Thursday 7th November 2013
quotequote all
Try posting up on Planet9, be surprised if none of those boys havnt done it...

Trev450

6,068 posts

141 months

Friday 8th November 2013
quotequote all
Very interesting read and would certainly sway me away from repalcing mine with an SM one.

Slippydiff

12,696 posts

192 months

Friday 8th November 2013
quotequote all
I've driven the SVP car, the lightweight flywheel is a must, just do it.

They fitted lightweight flywheels to the 996 GT3, the 964 RS and 993 RS, and whilst the Cayman/Boxster uses a different bottom end, I can't see there being an issue (and if there is it'll give you the perfect excuse to do a capacity increase . . . .) smile

Slippydiff

12,696 posts

192 months

Friday 8th November 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Bored this morning because no one "bit" in response to your comments on the 991 Turbo thread CM ? tongue out

I wouldn't expect you to get the lightweight flywheel "thing", it's far too risky, and on the basis of your previous comments regarding engine temps, you appear to be quite conservative and risk averse. No harm in that at all, but scaremongering by quoting verbatim from a four year old thread posted by someone who may have an agenda is a bit like a broken pencil (pointless) wink

Matt Seabrook

563 posts

220 months

Friday 8th November 2013
quotequote all
Must agree with the above. I would want to go in with eyes wide open on this as it could cause more damage than just a crank if that let go. I had a lwfw on a race car a few years ago and would love that kind of engine pick up in my Cayman but would just not want to risk trashing an engine or box. Still as long as the OP knows the risks then forewarned is forearmed.

HokumPokum

1,832 posts

174 months

Saturday 9th November 2013
quotequote all
interesting post. I am swayed by the LWFW too as I have it in my RS and would love my spyder to have one as well.

Similarly, I know nothing about harmonics but have always thought that dual mass flywheels are there to dampen the vibrations associated with a trembling flywheel. I really can't see how damaging that would be in itself. To me, it's almost like installing 996 cup cables and numeric or CAE shifters, you are only limited by your own inability to properly manage the drivetrain.

Thing is, I would rather have a sorted geo/suspension, better brakes and better cooling than any drivetrain mod any day of the week.

Mike_C

Original Poster:

984 posts

191 months

Saturday 9th November 2013
quotequote all
Evening all - thanks for all the opinions, links, etc! I've read through them all and spoken to Dominic at SVP, his response to my queries (and the thread linked above) are as follows:

"I understand your concerns, it all depends on the quality of the flywheel, we have had some of the A****** ones in from the states which are pretty poor quality, riveted together and no weight at all, thats why ours <is machined from solid and> weigh 6kg so there is still a flywheel effect on the engine, there are no harmonic issues with these, we have probably run them for over 30,000 road miles now and over 3 seasons in race cars with not one single issue, internet can be a dangerous place, you can find negatives or positives to just about anything you want to find."

and...

"Correct you have to fit a sprung clutch with a single mass flywheel unless its a full race car. We put a 12 month or 12,000 mile warranty on everything we do, you wont have any issues with these at all."

I'm pretty tempted to go for it!!

Slippydiff

12,696 posts

192 months

Saturday 9th November 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
"The man who never looks on the interweb
is better informed than he who reads it ;
inasmuch as he who knows nothing is
nearer to the truth than he whose mind
is filled with falsehoods and errors."
Thomas Jefferson 1807. Edited by Slippy 2013


wink

Edited by Slippydiff on Saturday 9th November 23:01

Slippydiff

12,696 posts

192 months

Sunday 10th November 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Say no more . . . . .

Let's get something straight, are you now saying there is no issue, per se, with single mass, lighter weight flywheels as fitted to the 964/993 RS, Mk1 GT3 Clubsport, 996 GT3 RS ? wink

anonymous said:
[redacted]
But he didn't, primarily because he's a lot smarter than you give him (or indeed most people on here) credit for. A point you may want to consider in future when banging on about stuff you appear to know little about.

Slippydiff

12,696 posts

192 months

Sunday 10th November 2013
quotequote all
I'd respond in full to your last post, but it's clear that to do so would only encourage you to spout more vitriolic spew along with further foul mouthed insults. You should be ashamed that you're unable to opine without resorting to the above.




Mike_C

Original Poster:

984 posts

191 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
Guys, guys, guys...it's the internet, chill out!

For what it's worth, I found the thread linked from the other forum really useful, it prompted me to question SVP further on something I didn't know a lot about, and the answers that came back have given me more confidence in going ahead with the SMF.

Having said that, last night I was thinking there's nothing "wrong" with the standard DMF and, having never driven a Cayman with a SMF fitted, I am tempted to stick with standard - it's £100 cheaper too (not a major concern to be honest!), so less risk and cheaper = win win I guess. I can't decide, but car is going over this afternoon so need to make a decision soon!

Mike_C

Original Poster:

984 posts

191 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
OK, after much deliberation I have decided to stick with a dual mass flywheel and go with that, my reasoning being:

1. I have no intention of tracking the car (my trackdays are all on my motorbike!) and therefore won't really benefit from the improved throttle response
2. For road use, the additional low down torque from the heavier flywheel is beneficial, particularly heading into winter (e.g. moving off from a standstill on snow/ice without minimal revs!)
3. The car was designed to work with a DMF and I don't know or understand enough about the SMF option to decide if the benefits are worth the risk

Will hopefully have my car back midweek! smile

tony993

169 posts

184 months

Monday 11th November 2013
quotequote all
Mike_C said:
there's nothing "wrong" with the standard DMF
Yes there is - it's too heavy & it spoils the car. It's not all that annoying in an S but I think my 2.7 would be a much better car if it had a lighter flywheel.

But I think you're right - it's probably best to stick with the DMFW.