With my flywheel having arrived, ive been thinking about what direction I want to go.

I have read elsewhere that many people have had vibration issues using the 616 flywheel behind a 617 because of weight. There is a ten pound difference?

I personally did not have this problem when I performed this swap previously, and others have told me that they have actually decreased the weight of the flywheel with no adverse affects.

Final application is longevity and easy of application, not so much performance. Would it be worthwhile in this regard to make the 616 flywheel heavier so its closer to a NA 5 cyl flywheel?

(01-29-2010 11:27 PM)dropnosky Wrote:  I have read elsewhere that many people have had vibration issues using the 616 flywheel behind a 617 because of weight.

The "vibration" is actually the driveline resonating and has nothing to do with flywheel mass. Adding the correct damper to the driveline hides the "problem", but its mainly caused by lugging the engine at too low rpm.

Interesting. lugging is not something I typically do, so no problem then.

I do have a driveshaft with a damper on it below, do you think this forward shaft would be worthwhile to build into the 617 driveline from the get go?

   

For strength and durability, yes. The damper is removable.

to re open this discussion .

I know Winmutt ordered a new flywheel out of Germany, so thats definitely an option. Since I am a cheapskate though, I have been thinking about how weight might be increased easily and cheaply, and let me bounce this idea off the forum-

Here is a little sketch up diagram- What if I made a steel ring that bolted to the flywheel AFTER the pressure plate is installed, and extended out over the pressure plate slightly? bolted to the outermost flat surface of the flywheel, in the red area.

   

I am thinking that a ring could be made that was wider than the release bearing, but was thin enough that it did not interfere with the shift fork and extended out into the void between the pressure plate and shift fork. It would be balanced with the flywheel, and essentially you would have a two part flywheel that unbolted to install the clutch. Since it would be a flat piece of mild steel, it should be something that would be reasonable to make cheaply IF it would fit.

You would want to balance it!!! and make dam sure the bolts that held it on could withstand the rotational forces in play!!! I wouldn't want to see that come apart

My engine was definitely vibrating more with the lighter flywheels. Not nearly as smooth. Then again I never had mine balanced

This guy posted adding an "Inertia Ring" to his Jeep's 4 cylinder flywheel to aid in low RPM climbs.

http://www.4x4wire.com/tech/clutch/inertiaring/

He bolted the ring to the back side of the wheel by drilling through the bolt holes used the clutch cover and replacing it with studs.

   
   

I haven't checked yet, but I think the intermediate plate to flywheel clearance issue maybe the downfall of attaching this ring on the backside.

   

Installed.

   


.

(07-09-2010 03:13 PM)willbhere4u Wrote:  and make dam sure the bolts that held it on could withstand the rotational forces in play!

The bolts only hold acceleration/deceleration torque. When its spinning the centrifugal force is equal all around.

One of my options was to machine an "inertia" ring for the M110 flywheel. I would have made it out of steel and it would have fit on the flywheel like the ring gear - heat to expand and shrink to fit, may be a few screws to hold it on for insurance.

I just discovered that 190E flywheels are pretty cheap too. Im just going to order one as well as a 240 flywheel and see if it can be made heavier and if it will match a 617 crank and starter ring gear.

then the plan is to look into these really interesting inertial ring ideas.

(07-26-2010 12:15 PM)dropnosky Wrote:  I just discovered that 190E flywheels are pretty cheap too. Im just going to order one as well as a 240 flywheel and see if it can be made heavier and if it will match a 617 crank and starter ring gear.

then the plan is to look into these really interesting inertial ring ideas.

So 190 flywheels are not really a workable option. Winmutt now has the one I had so he can apply it usefully. Aside from the completely different diameters, the hole patterns are too different, but are close enough that I feel like re drilling the hole pattern to fit the 61X crank might needlessly weaken the flywheel if you were to somehow overcome the starter issue.


Still excited about making an inertial ring, here is a pirated pic from peachparts showing the two flywheels- makes me believe that this might be easily possible.
   
Does anyone know the actual depth difference between the 300D or 300GD and 240D flywheels?

Once I get my 300D flywheel out I'll have a depth measurement.

Are ya sure that you can't helpfully persuade the ring gears off and switch them?

Which depth? The GD is thicker at the rim than the other two.

Drop's talking about the distance from edge of lip to pressure plate mating surface I think, since the others should be the same.

(10-14-2010 10:58 AM)300D50 Wrote:  Drop's talking about the distance from edge of lip to pressure plate mating surface I think, since the others should be the same.

yeah, or even just the difference in measured height from the ring gear up, like just the difference in the two in the picture. Basically, im trying to determine how thick an inertial ring I can make to bolt to the 240 flywheel. If the 300GD flywheel is 3/4 inches taller, I can make something in the space.

Sorry cant answer without dropping my trans

Now you know how I feel, I need to drop an entire engine out to get measurements, but can't be arsed to do it...

I can probably figure it out from the picture above and apply a ratio to the photo and the known measurements from my 240 flywheel. Of course, this means that I ALSO have to pull my tranny.

This past weekend I was at the Exploratorium, the museum of science, art and human perception, in San Francisco with my 2 ½ year old checking out all these science exhibits and stuff. The great part is you get the play with them. Been there a few times now and definitely one of my favorite Museums ever!

Anyrate, they had this exhibit that intrigued me relating to this thread in which there are these disks with different placements of weight. Well the statements made here and other forums are the 300D/GD flywheels a bit slow to rev up compare to the 240D counterparts.
Here is a video that is basically the exact exhibit that I was toying with, although it had more disks, weights and option of weight placements to use. The disk with the weights in the middle had a faster acceleration than the disks with the weights on the outside. But they both weighed the same.





In drop’s generated diagram of a flywheel, he has an inertia ring placed over the clutch. This ring appears to be wide enough to be able to get the weight towards the center for quicker acceleration in RPMs and be heavy enough to reduce vibrations. I think this might be a better design then keeping the weight on the outside. The rotational inertia is definitely being reduced. But does that mean it vibrations will not be dampened?




.

Thats a really interesting video! So a theoretical inertial ring that looked more like this might eliminate sluggish acceleration as well as increase the overall weight and reduce vibration?

I feel like it could still work for both. I see what you are saying though, if the rotational mass were centered for the acceleration advantage, you might lose the vibration advantage of the outward weighted stock flywheel from the heavier applications

   

I don't know how thick you could make it towards the middle though, from this pic, I imagine a ring could be made that went all the way in towards the fingers, and had a step in it to make up for the pressure plate protruding out at the midway point. That would mean additional thickness would have to be made on the other side, which might not work with the fork.

   

I see the issue..... Well just thinking out loud!




.

(10-18-2010 06:55 PM)DeliveryValve Wrote:  I see the issue..... Well just thinking out loud!

Yeah, but thats an excellent idea! Theres got to be some way to center additional weight, or at least partially center it!

(10-18-2010 06:01 PM)dropnosky Wrote:  Of course, this means that I ALSO have to pull my tranny.

You have the one from me, remember?

(10-18-2010 07:02 PM)300D50 Wrote:  

(10-18-2010 06:01 PM)dropnosky Wrote:  Of course, this means that I ALSO have to pull my tranny.

You have the one from me, remember?

Yeah, but the only 616 flywheels I have are bolted into two different vehicles and all buttoned up. I might get another one off car-part. You can never have too many to play with

Haha, true!

Dibs on a 300GD flywheel if you find one, I might need it to fit this darn clutch...

(10-18-2010 07:01 PM)dropnosky Wrote:  

(10-18-2010 06:55 PM)DeliveryValve Wrote:  I see the issue..... Well just thinking out loud!

Yeah, but thats an excellent idea! Theres got to be some way to center additional weight, or at least partially center it!

Maybe If there is enough room between block and flywheel, but mostly likely not enough. Then there might be need to research some other dense material. Perhaps some lead or brass weights pined to the steel plate?


.



.

Hey derv, thats exactly how a merry go round works the one where you put your kids in and have them hold on to dear life.

I remember if i sat near the center holding on to the stem post it wasnt that bad.

But when I sat and held on to the outside rail, it was nearly impossible.

You could always add weights to the actual flywheel bolts, and welding material to the inside of the flywheel but outside of the flywheel bolt area. Of course need to get it balanced but a few steel pieces could make a difference if welded around.