Notices
964 Forum 1989-1994
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Next Enhancement - RS Clutch/Flywheel...Plus

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-25-2011, 03:54 PM
  #31  
earlyapex
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
earlyapex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 3,162
Received 62 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

I don't want to be the only killjoy, but I was never impressed with the LWF in my 93 RSA when driven on the street. The slight improvement in engine responsiveness was not worth the hassle of trying to keep the engine from stalling at lights despite an Autothority chip that was supposed to prevent stalling issues. My RSA sees no track use so I had a standard flywheel put in.
Old 12-25-2011, 07:02 PM
  #32  
philchil
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
philchil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thx Eric...I am definitely getting mixed reviews of the LWF...I just want alittle pep off the line...regearing the tranny is too expensive, and will make an RSA street car's RPM to be too high for highway cruising, unless I get a 6spd and regear that...ummm...Phil
Old 12-25-2011, 08:02 PM
  #33  
bobaines
Pro
 
bobaines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: DFW
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Phil, I would be glad to send you my gear chart for the 6 speed, if you are interested, pm your e-mail. And for sure add the limited slip.

Bob
Old 12-25-2011, 08:24 PM
  #34  
philchil
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
philchil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Bob...thanks for the offer...just debating in my mind for now...I am looking forward to hearing your tranny build once you get it back. An option for me is to buy a 993 and mod that rather than messing too much with my RSA since the tranny and engine are strong, I would like to keep it close to stock ,,,except for the few lower cost (enhancements)...BTW...Merry Xmas...Phil
Old 12-25-2011, 08:39 PM
  #35  
earlyapex
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
earlyapex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 3,162
Received 62 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

Lose some weight in the RSA. I have Recaro PP's, which weigh less than the stock seats.

I would not buy a 993 to mod if you want to keep your wallet.
Old 12-26-2011, 09:58 AM
  #36  
philchil
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
philchil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

early apex...that is what my wrench told me too...

I am okay with two pcars...I like the aircooled ones...as you know an RSA is a different beast...no pwr steering and a 5 spd...

I like the 993 due to alittle more pop from the stock motor...243 lb feet of torque, ps, and six spd...maybe vram if I get 96 plus 993...thinking about finding a good one like my RSA and just regear the six speed...then I would have two different aircooled drivers...my wrench said to stick with my RSA and forget about the 993 due to the expense...two data points is a trend...
Old 12-26-2011, 03:22 PM
  #37  
Shamus964
Pro
 
Shamus964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

If possible get a ride along w/someone who has a LWF, it should help with the decision making.

I too read all the reviews and opinions I could and was concerned that idle drop etc. could be a problem. The chips from Steve Wong and Steve Weiner seem to work quite well. Again, though - it does reduce some insulation against ignition system issues so you'll want that system in top shape.

My experience was that the LWF made a big difference on an stock car, revs build much more quickly.

Good luck w/your decision!
Old 12-26-2011, 03:53 PM
  #38  
Frank 993 C4S
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Frank 993 C4S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NY Tri-State
Posts: 8,628
Received 843 Likes on 518 Posts
Default

I have the LWF, no chip, no stalling. It's great!

If you have a well sorted RSA, keep it.
Old 12-26-2011, 05:23 PM
  #39  
philchil
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
philchil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thx shamus and frank...

I already got the Steve Wong chip...and it includes the lwf coding...

In all of my research there appears to be two factors...the first one is what shambus is referring to...go thru the entire ignition system...some folks may be getting poor results due to this factor since the people that pay attention to it appear to be more pleased with the result...the second factor appears to be timeframe based...the last few years, most haven't had such a problem as the folks that got the mod 5 or more years earlier...maybe it's the refined chips that are now available...
Old 12-26-2011, 06:29 PM
  #40  
1990-964
Pro
 
1990-964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Peninsula
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by philchil
Thx shamus and frank...

I already got the Steve Wong chip...and it includes the lwf coding...

In all of my research there appears to be two factors...the first one is what shambus is referring to...go thru the entire ignition system...some folks may be getting poor results due to this factor since the people that pay attention to it appear to be more pleased with the result...the second factor appears to be timeframe based...the last few years, most haven't had such a problem as the folks that got the mod 5 or more years earlier...maybe it's the refined chips that are now available...
Your idea about newer chips may be plausible as tuners have maybe had more experience figuring this issue out. It does seem though that some cars are not bothered by it while others are unable to cope with the reduced mass. If you recall I mentioned that my car has no chip to counteract stalling and for me it is not a problem. Have had it happen a handful of times when coming down from speed and the AC running but otherwise it is never a problem. What convinced me to go ahead and do it was the guarantee my mechanic made me. It was that he would return it to me without a stalling issue or would return it to a DMF at no charge. Turns out that mine needed nothing and after close to 4 years and roughly 45,000-50,000 miles it still is problem free.
Old 12-26-2011, 07:59 PM
  #41  
Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems
RL Technical Advisor
 
Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 11,871
Likes: 0
Received 64 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Another data point on this,......

Many years ago, we noticed that engines that we had just rebuilt didn't exhibit any stalling issues; they ran pretty seamlessly once they adapted (about 50-100 miles). All of these engines were in perfect condition with all new intake gaskets, intake sleeves, stub manifolds, ISV, plug wires, caps & rotors, plugs, oxy sensor, etc etc etc. Most of these received custom software for performance, as well. There are differences here too, but that's another subject.

In short, zero vacuum leaks and everything in proper functioning condition.

Other engines that received the LWF setup adapted somewhat differently. Some did just fine without anything but an occasional stall, usually provoked by the driver, and others were "problem children" that even software wouldn't fix.

This is a complex subject frought with a LOT of different variables, however based on what I've observed, these cars do OK with the LWF provided everything is in top shape and there are no resident issues. Anything from some intake vacuum leaks to lazy oxygen sensors, to a worn AFM, to old plug wires, worn ISV, and more, can cause the motor to quit on occasion and that can be rather frustrating.

In conclusion, having driven a good number of these that do not stall with the RS LWF, I know that its fixable when someone is willing to dedicate adequate resources, especially when the car has accumulated some mileage (most have) and needs attention. I've found that the OEM DMF tends to mask some running issues that may not be readily apparent.

Naturally, JMHO so your experiences may vary.
Old 12-27-2011, 07:34 AM
  #42  
Amroth
Racer
 
Amroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 329
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

IMO anybody who would not upgrade to LWF purely because of some slight chatter at idle and low revs is a wimp that shouldn't have a 964 in the first place. The increase in noise is negligible
Old 12-29-2011, 11:03 PM
  #43  
philchil
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
philchil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Steve Weiner...thanks for the additional insight...also a hearty thanks to Colin, the NineMeister, on another thread with respect to "throttle response" and the explanation about the history of 911 engines and the lightweight components that got heavier over time. All the advice, both pro and con, has certainly been helpful...I thank you all!!!

I will be huddling with Lufteknic after the new year...will keep everyone posted, with pictures, as we move the car to the next level...I plan move forward with the LWF enhancement as well as other bits and pieces...

Happy New Year to all!

Phil



Quick Reply: Next Enhancement - RS Clutch/Flywheel...Plus



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:28 AM.