Ap1 VS Ap2 Flywheel, need to prove to a friend I am right?
03-26-2011, 11:18 AM
#1
Ap1 VS Ap2 Flywheel, need to prove to a friend I am right?
Well stupid shit goes on when my friend and I talking about cars,and the physics invloved with them. I will tell you we get into depth on everyhting, so as stupid as I may make this sound things are discussed in a very well learned well taught way. Right now from what I know it would make sense that if you put a heavier flywheel on a clutch system ( Disk, and pressure plate ) that were not revised it would slip more over time and have less life.
AS an example I told him if you put a 15 pound flywheel on a S2000 with the same disk, and pressure plate and a 25 pounds flywheel, with the same pressure plate and disk, the set up with the 35 pound flywheel would wear out more.
From my understanding, if I am wrong please correct me! When a clutch engages the flywheel it creates friction, and when friction is caused it slows down a object, even if it is not very much, it still does. If a disk had to come in contact with a 15 pound object it would have a certain friction force, if the pressure plate was not revised and it came into contact with a 25 pound object, that rotational mass of 25 pounds and the stock organic disk would take longer to grip and wear the disc out more.
Are there any proven tests on the S2000 that says the AP2 flywheel wears the disc out more because the weight? Thanks guys!
AS an example I told him if you put a 15 pound flywheel on a S2000 with the same disk, and pressure plate and a 25 pounds flywheel, with the same pressure plate and disk, the set up with the 35 pound flywheel would wear out more.
From my understanding, if I am wrong please correct me! When a clutch engages the flywheel it creates friction, and when friction is caused it slows down a object, even if it is not very much, it still does. If a disk had to come in contact with a 15 pound object it would have a certain friction force, if the pressure plate was not revised and it came into contact with a 25 pound object, that rotational mass of 25 pounds and the stock organic disk would take longer to grip and wear the disc out more.
Are there any proven tests on the S2000 that says the AP2 flywheel wears the disc out more because the weight? Thanks guys!
03-26-2011, 12:45 PM
#2
your theory sounds good in principle but it doesn't take into account the manner in which a person would engage the clutch. With a lighter flywheel you have to slightly elevate the rpms to launch and you can slip it more to avoid stalling out, hence very slight more wear on the clutch disc. Everything I've read is that a ligher flywheel does increase wear, though it is a samll amount and most people don't worry about it.
03-26-2011, 01:24 PM
#3
your theory sounds good in principle but it doesn't take into account the manner in which a person would engage the clutch. With a lighter flywheel you have to slightly elevate the rpms to launch and you can slip it more to avoid stalling out, hence very slight more wear on the clutch disc. Everything I've read is that a ligher flywheel does increase wear, though it is a samll amount and most people don't worry about it.
03-26-2011, 02:31 PM
#4
your theory sounds good in principle but it doesn't take into account the manner in which a person would engage the clutch. With a lighter flywheel you have to slightly elevate the rpms to launch and you can slip it more to avoid stalling out, hence very slight more wear on the clutch disc. Everything I've read is that a ligher flywheel does increase wear, though it is a samll amount and most people don't worry about it.
Ahh. I see. yeah I figured that by adding more weight and not upgrading the pressure plate clamping force the disc would slip more with more weight. I see people talk premature wear on the Ap2, but they say it is not from the CDV so it must be the flywheel? hum.
Ahh. I see. yeah I figured that by adding more weight and not upgrading the pressure plate clamping force the disc would slip more with more weight. I see people talk premature wear on the Ap2, but they say it is not from the CDV so it must be the flywheel? hum.
I've never heard of clutch wear differences between an ap1 and ap2. But the ap1 uses a higher clamping force pressure plate as compared to the ap2 which has been said to have a softer level of clamping force. There was also a change in clutch disc design from early ap1's to ap2, I don't know how that might affect clutch wear but there are some subtle differneces in addition to the flywheel weight.
03-26-2011, 04:58 PM
#5
Manufacturers typically use heavier flywheels when they get too many clutch failures. The heavier FW will spin up and down a little slower, carry more rotational energy, thus have a more stable rpm during a shift.
The result is fewer clutch slips but a less responsive feel when going up and down through the gears.
Honda used the heavier FW and CDV on the AP2 cars in response to AP1 clutch failures.
(Ford did the same thing in a recall of first year SHO cars).
The result is fewer clutch slips but a less responsive feel when going up and down through the gears.
Honda used the heavier FW and CDV on the AP2 cars in response to AP1 clutch failures.
(Ford did the same thing in a recall of first year SHO cars).
03-26-2011, 05:27 PM
#6
^ I do not think this is the reason... I believe Honda added the CDV to help protect the rear diff which is a weak link of the car, the addition of the heavier flywheel has to do with making the car more friendly to drive. Having own a Ap1 and Ap2 I can say that the AP2 is much easier to drive in stop and go traffic because it can handle shifts at lower RPMs better because the heavier flywheel help hold the revs up...
More to the original post...
I don't know of any study done to understand if an AP2 clutch wears out sooner then an AP1. There are a lot of variables that go into clutch life... There are guys who have gone over 100k on a stock clutch and those who maybe make 50k.
The heavy flywheel in theory would put more wear on a clutch for the reasons you posted, if will slip more as things match speed and the heavier rotational mass makes it harder to slow.
More to the original post...
I don't know of any study done to understand if an AP2 clutch wears out sooner then an AP1. There are a lot of variables that go into clutch life... There are guys who have gone over 100k on a stock clutch and those who maybe make 50k.
The heavy flywheel in theory would put more wear on a clutch for the reasons you posted, if will slip more as things match speed and the heavier rotational mass makes it harder to slow.
03-26-2011, 07:47 PM
#7
I think Cdelena's summary makes sense with traditional opinion that lighter flywheels increase clutch wear, you engage the clutch at lower rpms and less slippage occurs. When the opposite happens you get increased wear.
One thing that has always surprised me is how some early s2k owners had worn out their clutches in 12k miles, while a lot of guys get well over 100k miles. I'm sure driving style has a lot to do with it but there is a large variability.
One thing that has always surprised me is how some early s2k owners had worn out their clutches in 12k miles, while a lot of guys get well over 100k miles. I'm sure driving style has a lot to do with it but there is a large variability.
Trending Topics
03-26-2011, 09:33 PM
#8
I like the responses I am getting. I would like more people that have had a lot of experience with maybe both cars or setups? The pressure plate is the same through 2000-2009 so that was never changed. Part numbers prove this to be true too. 22300-PCX-015 is the part number for the pressure plate, the disk is the same too 22200-PCX-055. I am thinking about using the AP2 flywheel for now with a stock OE Exedy disk. Then before I go to tail of the Dragon Ill do a different setup.
03-26-2011, 10:52 PM
#9
Clutch delay valves operate on the principle that engagement only needs to occur at a certain rate to be efficient and that engaging at a quicker rate can damage the drive train components of an automobile. Engaging the drive train to the engine too quickly can damage drive train parts, including the transmission, differential, half shafts, axles, and CV joints. Engaging the drive train too slowly can damage the clutch friction disc and cause clutch slippage
Could it be possible that Honda's CDV was not designed correctly, or at least not as efficient as it should be? What if the valve takes a little too long and prematurely hurts the disc. I know everyone says ITS NOT THE CDV, what if it is over looked.. and it is?
I am not sure what a Ap1 flywheel weighs, I think i read 14.0 Pounds? I weighed my Ap2 flywheel, it was 21.6, 7.6 pounds I do not think would make a huge difference on clutch life. I am hoping to look into this more. I do know the CDV was developed to reduce drive-line shock.
Could it be possible that Honda's CDV was not designed correctly, or at least not as efficient as it should be? What if the valve takes a little too long and prematurely hurts the disc. I know everyone says ITS NOT THE CDV, what if it is over looked.. and it is?
I am not sure what a Ap1 flywheel weighs, I think i read 14.0 Pounds? I weighed my Ap2 flywheel, it was 21.6, 7.6 pounds I do not think would make a huge difference on clutch life. I am hoping to look into this more. I do know the CDV was developed to reduce drive-line shock.
03-28-2011, 12:14 PM
#10
Iv confirmed the AP1 flywheel is 14 pounds. The Ap2 I weighed it in at 21.6, it may just be 21 pounds though. We're looking a a 7 pound difference. I do not think that would be enough to start hurting a stock factory disk. A lightened flywheel actually will wear a disk more becase it slow down faster then a stock Ap1, Ap2 flywheel.