joey bagadonuts

Thanks, Christer. I'll buy that. Compared to my C4, the pedal effort required by the LWF-equipped RSA was night and day. Acceleration, however, was not dramatically different.

Tim Sawyer

You know there isn't a library in the world where you could aggregate this volume of information on a given topic. What a truly amazing thing this forum is, and I for one am gald to be a miniscule part of it. Anyway, I was re-re-re reading Adrians tome last night and the one thing we haven't touched on is the MWF option as it pertains to the 89 C4 19lb unit. Similar in effect to the Andial (whose opinion I do value) solution of adding mass to the LWF, but I am guessing less expensive. Has anyone had experience with this? My issue with GIAC et al is I am nervous about raising the rev limiter , as Adrian points out these engines weren't really built for much more and its easy to get excited, and forget over time, and before you know it you are regularly hitting the "new" ceiling. My point being, a MWF plus a chip that retains the original cut off could be a step up in terms of drivability but one that is perhaps more "user friendly". I know , I know it sounds a bit lame to be thinking in those terms but I am not the only driver of the car shall I say....

Tom W

Garrett: The ISV adjustment came from a post a couple years ago on the 993 board by David ("993,951,944" on Rennlist) with additional input from "tom_993". I've pulled it all together and put it into a MS Word DIY document - that I provided to John D when he did his LWF install. If anyone wants a copy, I'll be happy to provide it.

One difference with the 964 vs 993 is you can adjust the idle on a 964 at the throttle cable. That has been done to my car and does improve/reduce the stalling. As I said, I haven't had any issues with the 4 track days I've had since the LWF install a few weeks ago, but I may try the ISV adjustment if I have any problems.

Tom W

Tim: A couple comments. The GIAC chip does not raise the rev limiter for the LWF, it may try to raise the idle rpm (which would help). My first GIAC chip was the wrong one and the rev limiter was removed (I once looked down to see 7400 rpm!) but a replacement chip had the rev limiter in the stock position.

I looked at the Andial option (talked to them) when considering the change for my 993. I decided against it as the Andial version costs a few hundred dollares more and it negates about half the benfit. If you remove about 14 lbs from the flywheel (dual mass about 32 lb and LWF about 19 lb, IIRC) but then add back 7 lb (Andial) to get the MWF you get less benefit fom the change.

I decided the "issues" with the LWF were overcome by the benefits, so I went with the straight LWF and clutch. Some people hate the gear noise and/or can't stand the occasional stalling. Some don't mind either (and the stalling really can be minimized by a change in driving technique). So it's really a personal opinion that counts and that's the hard part to evaluate based only on other peoples opinions - what are you willing to tolerate?

Tim Sawyer

Tom, thanks for that. I was under the impression that GIAC did bump it, so that is good to know. You are 100 percent right, its all about personal threshold, although what is interesting is that there is starting to be "a bigger picture" forming, by that I mean its not just get the LWF and accept it as is, there are combinations of possible solutions. As you mention both the ISV and the throttle cable can help and then simply not dumping the clutch in as part of ones driving style can all mean the benefits outweigh the negative. A great excuse to really perfect your heel and toe and general pedal control. Also I think an important point to make for anyone considering this is where you live and what kind of miles you put on the car. If you live, like we do, in a place where the weather is mild and you don't commute a major metro area with a lot of stop and go traffic, the downsides are minimized considerably, and obviously the converse if you live in a place where that is your day to day. I almost never sit in stop and go traffic so I am trying to factor that into my decsion making. Would you like to meet sometime? Khadmus and you and I are pretty much neighbors (in internet terms at least)

Gavin

I have LWF and different cams....which makes to idle slightly uneven to begin with. Yes it stalls occasionally (especially when turning slowly, loading up the power steering). Acceleration difference ..don't know can't tell. Clutch pedal heavier ! The biggest difference is how quickly the engine picks up revs when heel and toeing or when changing from say fourth to third and giving it full beans....it's almost seamless and very quick...

Much more fun....However, as a daily driver I think it would probably drive me nuts in the end

Chris 911

The temperature has a great deal to say. Now during winter time in Norway it can be a bit frustrating until the oil gets warm. But as I mentioned, altering a little bit on your driving technique can compensate for this. I hardly had any stall problems after the clutch was installed, which was in summertime. But to add to the original poll I can state the following experience:

Pluss: .
-Has a shorter on-off point which gives you quicker gearing.
-Sharper/quicker reving (as mentioned earlier on this poll that makes heal-toe more fun)
-A lighter feel to the whole car
-Acceleration seems quicker, BUT this is in the upper revs as the engine had before (above 4000rpm) They say that a lighter flywheel will give you less torque, but I have not noticed this.
-weight loss, you save about 7kg (about 15 pounds) on the parts.

Only down side:
-stalling when cold.
-Some says noise problems, but I did not notice any difference.
-A bit more on-off feeling when cruising at low speeds, as some have mentioned.

I also said in the poll, some problems, but easy to live with, and I would in no doubt do it again.

Tim Sawyer

As a follow up to my post regarding the possibility of using the single mass MWF that was the stcok flywheel for the 89 C4, Carlsen in Palo Alto quoted me $527.55, just as an FYI for anyone.

JasonAndreas

Did anyone here that responded to the poll own a genuine RS?

John Boggiano

Current results, in order of the options are 5, 0, 15 ,3.

jagerocks

John Boggiano,
HOLY COW I have a LWF in my 1990 C2, and now I can't even drive the thing REALLY it craps out and stalls as soon as yo give it gas and the rev's drop. I'm tring to deal with this now. A Hassel in my option.

Jason

John Boggiano

Now 7,0,15,3

Johan K

Is the poll open for RS owners? Heck, vote casted anyway (I hit the no probs button )

Andy Roe

Right! I know there has been many a thread lately warning against fitting a LWF. After having a long discussion with my mechanic, I agreed to have one fitted along with an RS clutch. I've driven the car most of the day, & it has not stalled once. I even tried it with the A/C on & that did not cause any problems. Maybe I've just be lucky?

The gearbox does make more noise and idle and if your revs are too low when accelerating, but that's something I can live with and will probably learn to avoid.

I'm wondering if the stalling issue is more common with the earlier cars that don't have the plastic intake and newer throttle arrangement etc.?

Overall, I'm very pleased with it! It's feels quicker in the lower gears, but the fact I had a Cat By-Pass fitted at the same time may also have something to do with this, but the throttle seems much sharper. I think it will take me a while to get used to not pressing the throttle so much when taking off though, as the revs really do pick up damn quick!!

One downside I can think of right now though, is that I'll probably go through the clutch quicker than I would have done on a standard unit...!

Just my 0.02cents...

Andy

Colin 90 C2

To add my .02.

After nearly two weeks on a fresh LWF, Initially I had some slight stalling issues, but the stalling was inconsistent.
I adjusted the CO mixture because I was running rich and now I find that it does not ever stall. I can't say if this is the fix, because I have an aftermarket chip that is programmed for the LWF.

IN the end, I am very pleased with the results. The engine seems to wind up quicker.

I say go for it.