Since it's a distance-from-center squared issue, the dual disk could be heavier and still suck up less power - since it's smaller in diameter. Having it both smaller and lighter is a double win!

 

So far based on what I am reading... I need
1) new 87/85 hybrid flywheel.
2) new starter mounting bracket (from old car ie 81??)

I can reuse the 89 throwout bearing/release arm setup with the existing bellhousing..

What about the splined shaft?..any differences between the twin disk and the 89 one?

Thanks...

Looking forward to accelerating faster with my numerically higher diff ratio and lightweight clutch...

Tom
midlman@rennlist.net
89GT

 

you go it!

IM not sure about the shaft or the bearing release. but i think i remember reusing all that stuff. Now, thats on a s4, dont know if the GT is the same on those parts.

BTW, That would be "numerically higher ratio" over a specific operating range favoring the 2.2. Ha ha.

MK

 

So...does anyone have input on the balancing issue?...should I balance the assembly (flywheel and clutch pack) or just bolt it in. Also..anyone have a deal on an 85 manual flywheel and a 87 AT flywheel..Thanks in advance..

Tom
midlman@rennlist.net
89GT

 

Angle,

How are you!! How's the GT holding up?
I would like a copy of the writeup.

 

does the timing gear ring have to be from an 87? will a later ring be ok, say from a 92?

 

I'm not so sure about the starter/bracket info.

Why would one need to change this? The starter goes in the exact same place, as the gear teeth for the starter are in the same place on on all cars?

I have most all the pieces (I think) for the retro on the 89. 85 ish flywheel, intermediate plate, and an 80-86 clutch kit. I'll also need the guide tube from the early cars. The small polot shaft is the same for all years, IIRC.

I won't need the timing teeth stuff, as AEM won't be reading the crank teeth and angle from back there.
Anyone have more info on why the starter bracket needs changing?

 

its only for weight saving considerations. yes, the old bell housing will work fine.

with the old style bell housing, you loose that 2lb bracket. not a biggie

Mk

 

As far as I know the flywheel is independently balanced. The clutch pack is balanced as a unit and must be assembled according to balanced markings.

 

These pieces are supposed to be zero balanced as I recall, but I had mine balanced with the rest of my rotating assembly, and it did need some changing. For what its worth.

 

So, the list is whittling down..

appears I just need the modified flywheel combo...other than that..other parts are re-useable. Nice to know.

Now..this particular clutch assembly had been balanced to the flywheel so I assume the new clutch pack going into that car (one who donated the double disk to me) will likely require balancing since material was taken out of the existing flywheel...? and ....the one going into my car will also require balancing due to material removed from this clutch..>....oh well....since they are both out the car..shouldn't be too bad..

later,
Tom
midlman@rennlist.net
89GT

 

tom, your thread cropt up at just the right time for me. i went and re-read a thread started by brendan a while ago about aluminium flywheels and concluded that for performance im probably best off to go in the double disc retrograde direction. ive got a couple of sources tracking down an early flywheel for me which i can hopefully use.

 

found one! i see what this is about now... although there dosent seem to be much in the weight difference between S4 and S2 flywheel, the clutch pressure plate is much smaller and more compact. looks as if the timing ring from my 92 auto will go onto this S2 flywheel.

 

Nick


Any more of those 85 flywheels about, i have been after one for ages


Stuart

GT UK

 

Nick note the locating pin hole in the flywheel you MUST have the missing teeth on the timing ring correctly indexed to locating hole when you press on the later automatic ring and it is a good idea to spot weld it to be sure that it does not move.....