Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Seems fair, seeing as you have no idea what you're talking about.

Same could be said for yourself judging by a few of your last posts here and elsewhere.

Sounds alot like tha garbage talk you hear over on NS.com. The fact that you feel the need to personally attack someone to get your point across does not add strength to your argument.

No references to back your argument by any chance?

MrStabby has it right.

R32Abuser you need to re-think your mechanical force concepts.

Let me ask you this...

Assume the clutch and flywheel assembly is at rest.

Induce a torque (via the motor) onto this assembly so that it will rotate.

Now, suddenly, the flywheel is instantaneously stopped. Newtons first law states that the clutch asm will want to continue to rotate. We all know that it will cease to move a very short time after the flywheel stops rotating due to these two items being attached to one another.

What part of the flywheel/clutch assembly transfers this torque reversal? Would you agree that it is the locators/fasteners which fasten/locate the clutch assembly to the flywheel?

It has to be...there is nothing else attaching these two indivdual parts together.

Now, if the dowels are toleranced tighter than the bolts themselves, what else will transmit this torque reversal?

Also,

Since this assembly is not counter-weighted, and since another member has stated that locating is not important, then why are the dowels there? I agree that in some setups (aftermarket) there is no dowels, but does that automatically make them a good/better design?

Edited by R32Abuser

Your very own argument shows that you do not know how the fasteners do their jobs. You had best stop now. You are making yourself look stupid.

No references...? So many credible source must agree with your argument though. Right?

You must be correct though...Nissan (and majority of manufacturers) have done, and continue to do it wrong. You dont need dowels on the flywheel. :down:

Edited by R32Abuser
  • 1 month later...
  • 9 years later...

This is interesting, suggests there is a correct orientation for the flywheel. To which the dowel will assist in getting it right. So as long as you align the dowel holes should be all good, right?

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2009/08/dowel-pin-alignment-caution-for-nissan-engines/

  • 2 months later...

I can't believe the numpty you were arguing with couldn't grasp-

1. Dowel is for locating

2. Bolts press two surfaces together

 

..and this thread made it to page 2 !

FFS...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...