Czechered Flag

My 95 C4 is starting to get that pull away lag in 1st and 2nd. Not engaging as 'tightly' and responsive as it used to, so looking for replacement options. I have changed the master and slave (and most recently the suspicious hose to the master and bled) but no luck. To my knowledge the clutch is the original one to the car and with 70K miles it could be time, so I started searching online for a kit on sale. I came across a RS clutch kit thats very well priced and was curious about how it would fit with either the existing dual-mass or a new 'mid weight' fly wheel? Ive read a lot about the RS clutch with the LWFW but I don't feel I want to deal with the stalling issues, rattling noises, chipping it etc, as most of my driving is local with the occasional longer day trip. If anyone has experience with the RS plates, bearings etc on a dual mass or mid weight FW (ie AASCO MWFW) I'd love some feedback as the kit is priced well hence worth exploring, otherwise I'll go with the stock replacement set up. Also reading that a engine in clutch job is preferable as there a many 25 year old connections that are better not to 'crack'?

Bill Verburg

a regular RS uses the same dual mass set up as a regular 993, only the RS/CS uses the lighter single mass spring disk setup.

If changing from dual mass to single mass you will need the entire kit from flywheel back

some trans are better ansd some worse w/ regard to rattling, you never know till you do it,

if worried about stalling get the mid weight

pp000830

A little information on this page concerning the clutch:
https://993servicerepair.blogspot.co...eels-poor.html
Also with 70K miles on the odometer you don't need a new flywheel anyway.
Andy

MarinS4

This is one of those mods where your individual tastes will determine what's best.

When I first got my 993tt I was dead set against it. I heard enough other cars with rattling marbles in neutral. As the years rolled on I became more of a driver and started to appreciate the upsides (quicker shifting from faster rev drops and snappier acceleration/throttle response) and was willing to live with the downsides. Oddly enough my car exhibits very little of the downside so it's entirely win win.

Try to define your preferences as a owner (GT, poser, driver or racer) then salt to taste. No judgement from me on those that choose mid weight or even stock, I once wore those shoes.

Edward

This is the question you must answer. Perhaps you are already familiar with performance mods and their compromises, but if not think deeply on this. Everything we do to "upgrade" these beasts deosn't always result in a genuine benefit we enjoy; it's all compromise and you must discern which you are willing to accept.

FWIW, think about what "zippiness" you will gain from a lighter flywheel against noise (which you cannot predict as each car varies), predilection to stalling (varies, too, which you then have to drive differently), and this over the long haul each and every time you drive. Will you smile at what sliver of performance "feel goods" you gain despite these potentials, or will it irritate you? Accountants, fund managers, and engineers weigh cost/benefit at every turn, so too should we performance addicts, of which I am likewise culpable.

Edward

Ivan J

The above statement is simply bad advice. Nobody can assess the condition of a flywheel without inspecting it. At 70k miles, you will probably find that your flywheel needs to be replaced if the clutch is worn.

Edited to add: If by "pull away lag" you mean that your clutch is slipping, you will most certainly need a new flywheel. A slipping clutch will overheat the flywheel, which should be evident when it is inspected.

Czechered Flag

Thanks so much for the thoughts so far. My hope is to not go down the proverbial "rabbit hole" again on the drivetrain (as I did with the suspension) and only wonder if there'd be a benefit to use the RS clutch plates and bearings on the stock dual mass set up? If its lighter or would have 'improved engagement' I'd consider it as $600.00 for the plates, release and pilot bearings seems like a relatively good deal. Now understanding that if I go to a single mass FW (even mid -weight) and would need to replace everything from the fly wheel back I'm less inclined, especially of the current FW is good upon inspection.

IainM

Unless you’re adding power, there’s no point to the RS PP and disc. The springs are stiffer for more power and make the clutch heavy. You’d need to replace guide tube & TO bearing.
not sure how the spring RS disc would work with. a DMF. Probably not well.
unless you want the LWFW, I’d stay stock all the way

pp000830

Hi Ivan,
I may have been absolute in my language in error.
Obviously, it has to measured. My flywheel was fine when I replaced the clutch at 70K+ miles and my car runs with no issues now at over 100K miles on it. Saying it automatically needs to be replaced sounds like a "while-I'm-in-there item" something I am extremely suspect of unless someone can give me a solid basis for it such as exceding the factory-specified wear limit.

I looked them up in the specification book.
The radial runout is 0.10mm
The axial runout is 0.20mm

Andy

notabot

Does the mid-weight flywheel have the same stalling issue as the lightweight flywheel on the 1995’s?

rk-d

I think you're making the right call avoiding LWFW on a '95. I have one on my '98 and it's great, but I don't have to deal with stalls. That's something that I would never get used to. The noise issue is not a big deal (for me anyway) and is harmless. On the '95s it seems to be a bit of a crapshoot on stalling. Either way, I'd make sure your ISV is clean/new.

That said, if you were going dual mass, I'd stick with stock.

Mid-weight -- probably can go either way. FWIW, my RS clutch doesn't feel particularly heavy.

On a '95, personally, I'd go with the mid-weight flywheel and RS clutch. Also, I believe the MWFW will still have the noise characteristics of a LWFW, if that bothers you. It doesn't have all the springs and junk that a dual mass has.

autobonrun

I can’t address the potential stalling but I can comment on when the rattling is worse. I wanted the faster spool up so I was prepared to deal with it. I’ve had the RS clutch/ LWF setup on my 1996 993 since I bought the car in 2005. I have had the same setup on my 996 TT for about 5 years.

With the engine running and the clutch out in neutral I get rattle; both cars. Same scenario with AC compressor engaged you get even more rattle. Press the clutch in and the rattle goes away in both instances. Or turn the AC off momentarily and it is substantially reduced.

Pulling away from a stop, or being in too high of a gear at low speed also causes the rattle. Just drop down a gear.

There is no discernible rattle at speed. These are my observations.

IainM

The 95 stalling issue is so marginal I’m sure an extra 10lbs would solve the probelm

Czechered Flag

Thanks for all the thoughts. My local is suggesting to stick with the dual mass. Hoping to find someone local to hear and feel first hand before making a decision.

Cactus

I have a 95 and recently had a new clutch and DMF installed. I regularly use the A/C, lights, stereo so I didnt want to mess around with the stalling issue.