Pale Horse's Turbo Build

[Pale Horse]

BUILD COMPLETED

Hey guys, after owning my 2001 Eclipse RS 5-speed manual for about three years now I’ve decided I want to harness her true potential by ascending to the forced-induction world . Here are some pictures as the car sits now. While I won’t be able to do this all at one sitting, I’m planning on knocking out some of the “prep work” as I get time until I have time off in May after graduation from college! I figured I would start this thread a little early for discussion and any questions if need be. Like Drewski's build, this will be a slow process.

The only performance modifications the vehicle currently has are a K&N Typhoon short-ram intake, OBX long-tube headers, and a MagnaFlow 2.25” catback exhaust. A lot of problems came with this car at the time of purchase and shortly thereafter, but everything has been taken care of and she now runs like a champ. I call her the Pale Horse, and she is everything I wanted in an Eclipse, which is the car I’ve wanted since I was ten years old. 88,XXX on the odometer, regular oil changes every 3,000 miles and bi-weekly washes, she’s one of my most prized possessions.













I started gathering parts for the turbo build off of places like C3G and EvoM following the advice of Ithinkyou, kiddd, Whitley87, and PharmEcis to name a few; in the fall of 2011. I finished collecting my parts early February of 2012, and my build is scheduled for the second week of May (after I get my Bachelor of Science in Biology and Biochemistry ) – giving myself a full seven days to complete it so that I don’t have to rush anything. My parts list is shown below, fully enumerated with the cost I paid for each. As you can see, I got some really good deals, and some “meh” deals. Note that some of the items (#2 and #39) were purchased for me as gifts, but I included the price of those items since I wanted to provide a 99% complete list of what one would need to complete a turbo build. Special note to someone who hasn’t even started a build: I didn’t include any of the tools that I purchased, since I already had a lot of them in my possession – though some optional entities were left out too such as electrical connectors, crimps, etc. It’s also important that you may not need every single piece on this list, as this is what I wanted and my own way of going about it. You have a lot of options for the 2.4L 4G64. Us four cylinder guys are lucky in that sense!

The Price of Boosting a 3G Eclipse
1.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM 16G 9.8 Turbocharger $224
2.Megan Stainless Steel O2 Housing w/ Doughnut Gasket $66
3.Mitsubishi Eclipse GT OEM 3.0L 6G72 Throttle Body (w/ IAC & TPS) $55
4.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Intercooler Piping + Clamps/Couplers $85
5.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Oil Pan + Windage Tray + Oil Pickup Sock $60
6.TurboXS Evo VIII Stainless Steel Tubular Manifold + VHT Coating $100
7.Cobb 3” Evo VIII Stainless Steel Downpipe w/ Wideband Bung $50
8.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Fuel Pump $40
9.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Oil Return Tube $20
10.Evo VIII 16G Turbo Studs and Bolts (Manifold and O2) $14
11.Lowe’s Stainless Steel M10x1.25 Nuts (bolt onto turbo studs) $3
12.Fel-Pro Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 6G72 Throttle Body Gasket $3
13.Turbo to O2 Housing Gasket $10
14.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Turbo J-Pipe + Gasket $20
15.Injen Evo VIII Intake Tube $60
16.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Fuel Rail $29
17.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Coolant Tube + Banjo Bolt $20
18.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Windage Tray Bolts $10
19.Turbo to Manifold Gasket $25
20.(2) MAP Evo VIII -10AN Oil Return Fittings + Gaskets/Bolts $50
21.OBX Black Silicone Radiator Hoses $56
22.TurboXS RFL Type-H Blow-Off Valve $50
23.Stainless Steel Type-H BOV Intercooler Adapter Pipe $23
24.Crankcase Breather Cone Filter + Worm Clamp $7
25.JDM Sport (eBay) 28x7.0x2.5in Front-Mount Intercooler (Black) $69
26.3.0” Stainless Steel Coupler Joiner $8
27.3.0” to 2.5” 45° Silicone Reducer Elbow Coupler $20
28.3.0” to 2.5” Straight Silicone Reducer Coupler $8
29.2.5” Straight Silicone Coupler $6
30.6ft of THICK 6mm Vacuum Line $9
31.6ft of 3/8” Coolant Hose $8
32.Cajun Power Evo VIII T-Bolt Clamp Set $30
33.Shipping for Item #’s 26-32 $14
34.Greddy Oil Sandwich Block Adapter $69
35.36” Oil Feed Line -4AN + M12x1.25 Banjo + 1/8 NPT Male End $25
36.2mm M12x1.25 Oil Restriction Banjo Bolt $2
37.Stainless Steel Oxygen Sensor Bung (for post-cat) $6
38.MagnaFlow High-Flow Catalytic Converter (3.0” Round) $60
39.Modified Concept (eBay) Full 3.0” Catback w/ 4.0” Tip $140
40.14mm Stainless Steel 4G63 Manifold Flange $50
41.Angle-milling of Manifold Flange $103
42.Misc. 30 Pack Vacuum Caps $8
43.K&N HP1010 Oil Filter $15
44.3/8-NPT Male to 1/8-NPT Female Adapter Bushing $10
45.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Battery Tie Down $15
46.GodSpeed 6-Port Universal Vacuum Manifold $26
47.Zeitronix ZT-2 Wideband O2 Sensor + LCD Screen $377
48.Zeitronix ZT-2 EGT Probe $86
49.Zeitronix ZT-2 MAP/Boost Sensor (<50PSI) $117
50.Zeitronix Serial to USB Adapter $35
51.(2) Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM Downpipe Spring Bolts $38
52.Mitsubishi Eclipse GT OEM Rear Disc Brake Swap (w/ New Rotors) $250
53.Tactrix OpenPort 2.0 OBD-II Tuning Cable + Mitsubishi Adapter $191
54.Mitsubishi Evo VIII OEM ’03 RS ECU $120
55.EvoScan OBD-II Mitsubishi MUT-II DataLogger Scantool $25
56.Stainless Steel 3” 2-Bolt Flange (For Cat) $21
57.Subaru Impreza WRX STI OEM 565cc “Pink Top” Top-Feed Injectors $175
58.SSStuds 2G Extended Exhaust Manifold Studs w/ Copper Nuts $68
59.Mitsubishi Eclipse GST OEM O2 Sensor $75
60.Prosport Evo Gauges (Metric Water & Oil Temp, Oil Pressure in PSI) $211
61.Dragon Gauge (eBay) Digital Tach and Voltage 52mm Gauges $27
62.Mitsubishi Evo OEM Oil Drain Gasket (Turbo side) $4
63.Misc. Electrical Odds/Ends (Fuse Taps, Vampire Taps, Butt Connectors, etc) $30
64.Torque Solutions Evo VIII Aluminium Shifter Bushings $21
65.(4) NGK Iridium IX BKR7EIX 2667 Spark Plugs $29
66.(2) 3/8" Coolant Line Tees $9
67.10AN 12" Braided Stainless Steel Oil Return Line $25
68.MAP Kracka CrankCase One-Way Valves $35
69. DEI Black Exhaust Header Wrap + Stainless Steel Ties $25

-------------------Running Total: $3,775-------------------

The pictures:

Turbo:

Piping,Oil Pan, TB, Gaskets and Fuel Pump:

Exhaust Manifold:

Intercooler:

Injectors (Yes, I know the top rings need replaced):

Angled Spacer:

Some of the exhaust:


These are the only pictures I had on my computer, and I live 200 miles away from the rest of my parts while I’m at school. Next time I go home I’ll post pics up of everything.
Moving on, my horsepower goal for this project is 200-250whp. I plan on running the stock Evo VIII 16G spring pressure at 10-12PSI. I intentionally did NOT purchase a manual boost controller for the sole reason that I don’t want to be able to turn up the boost. Everyone here talks about the urge to up the boost, but you can’t up the boost if you’re running stock spring pressures without a manual boost controller! This is a way to ensure self-control. After the build is complete, I’ll be email tuning with 2000RS-Turbo. Enough of the smalltalk, let’s get into it. I made this post to show some ideas of my own as well as have a place for valuable insight, problemshooting, and good general discussion.

Pre-Build Variables:
Research: Hopefully enough.
Time: Seven days off work.
Backup vehicle: 1999 Chevy Cavalier. 2.2L Ecotech Powa!
Safety money: Decent amount, let’s hope I won’t need much of it.
Help: A good friend of mine who works on a lot of DSMs. Oh, and Club3G! =]
Patience: We’ll see

Build Schedule:
1 – Rear disc conversion: COMPLETE
2 – Fuel pump swap: COMPLETE
3 – Evo ECU swap, tach/voltage gauge install: COMPLETE
4 – Radiator hose exchange, coolant flush, throttle body swap, “burp” coolant system: COMPLETE

-----From this point on the car won’t be started for the duration of the build-----

5 – Exhaust manifold, turbo, BOV, intercooler + piping Install: COMPLETE
6 – Vacuum manifold, turbo Intake, turbo coolant lines T-ed into TB: COMPLETE
7 – Oil pan swap, oil sandwich install, connect oil feed/drain, change oil filter and oil, CHECK FOR LEAKS COMPLETE
8 – Haul car to exhaust shop, have Evo downpipe bent and fitted. Cat welded onto 3” exhaust, exhaust edited (2.25” section cut out, Hi-Flo cat welded in, wideband bung welded in, etc.) COMPLETE
9 – Return the car home COMPLETE
10 – Install wideband and configure setup for the Zeitronix/Clock pod combo COMPLETE
11 – Turn the key, hope it starts, TUNING TIME! COMPLETE

[Pale Horse]

Here are some pics of the rear disc conversion:


Before:








The parts after being cleaned up and painted/clear-coated:

Caliper installed:

Backing plate and rotor installed:


After:






As a side note, I purchased new wheels and tires a few weeks ago and they didn’t bother to tell me they were on backorder. I have a bad case of camber which I will deal with when I have the wheels off again, and that’s why my tires are so bald on the rear. I figured since I had new tires on the way I could continue to run these ones, but after calling and finding out they were on backorder and wouldn’t be sent for another month or so, I just bought some cheapos to throw on there since these were obviously not safe.

These tires were brand new in February:



These are the wheels I'm waiting on in 18x8 +35:

[Drewski0523]

Looking good bro. So when you going to jump on the bandwagon and swap to brembo's?

Also, you think you have enough guages? Let me know what you think of the zietronix (spelling?) as I'm between them and the HKS Camp 2 setup

[grfft3r]

Good luck on your build. At least your gonna backin' up those lambo doors with power.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by Drewski0523

Looking good bro. So when you going to jump on the bandwagon and swap to brembo's?

Also, you think you have enough guages? Let me know what you think of the zietronix (spelling?) as I'm between them and the HKS Camp 2 setup

Thanks bro!

Haha after seeing yours I highly considered it! And I MIGHT have enough gauges, I'm not sure yet lol. Normally I hate any aftermarket tachs but once I saw the digital one my friend had I wanted it too. It's badass to watch the numbers scroll constantly

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by grfft3r

Good luck on your build. At least your gonna backin' up those lambo doors with power.

Appreciate it man!

[randondgk]

that's pretty sick man, i have been wanting to do the same thing with my car. but it'll probably be a while. good luck with everything

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by randondgk

that's pretty sick man, i have been wanting to do the same thing with my car. but it'll probably be a while. good luck with everything

Thanks dude, it took me a while too. I still have a couple of weeks to go before I start the actual hard work though. Thanks for the luck!

[wanted A GT]

Good luck on the build. Looks like you got everything ready. With this car there is always something else you need lol. You can buy my brembos if your really interested I need to hop off the bandwagon for a bit.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by wanted A GT

Good luck on the build. Looks like you got everything ready. With this car there is always something else you need lol. You can buy my brembos if your really interested I need to hop off the bandwagon for a bit.

Thanks bro, and I'll definitely take them in the future if you still have them

Right now I'm focusing on this haha, and you're right there's probably a lot I will need.

[wanted A GT]

Do the pink top sti injectors fit? I know the blues are plug and play don't think i've seen anyone use the pinks though.

Edit: The pinks are same size as the blues apparently so your good.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by wanted A GT

Do the pink top sti injectors fit? I know the blues are plug and play don't think i've seen anyone use the pinks though.

Indeed man. The pink tops are a common swap for WRX owners from their blue tops. Except for being a little bit taller, they're the same dimensions as the blue tops. Connection and everything is the same.

[smed112233]

Originally Posted by wanted A GT

Do the pink top sti injectors fit? I know the blues are plug and play don't think i've seen anyone use the pinks though.

Edit: The pinks are same size as the blues apparently so your good.

I'm running the pinks They are physically the same size as the 440's, the only difference between the two are the flow rates. Everything else is identical.

[wanted A GT]

Seems like you'd see them around here more often. Instead of wiring the low impedance in.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by smed112233

I'm running the pinks They are physically the same size as the 440's, the only difference between the two are the flow rates. Everything else is identical.

Smed did yours happen to have tiny O-rings on the top where it mounts into the fuel rail? The guy I bought them from said they were brand new rings but if you look at the pic I posted you can see how little they are. I was just curious if yours were the same. I'll probably end up just taking the rings off my stockers and throw on there.

[ryandiaz440]

Good luck with the build man. List looks good so far, definitely keeping an eye out this build.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by ryandiaz440

Good luck with the build man. List looks good so far, definitely keeping an eye out this build.

Thanks man! Can't wait to get into it!

[Silvertune]

This build is glorious, truly.

Just make sure you drill out the return elbow on the sending unit when you do your wally. Also, using a belt sander is a thousand times easier then using a dremel on the pickup sock. Glad to see you finally tracked down that angled spacer!

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by Silvertune

This build is glorious, truly.

Just make sure you drill out the return elbow on the sending unit when you do your wally. Also, using a belt sander is a thousand times easier then using a dremel on the pickup sock. Glad to see you finally tracked down that angled spacer!

Thanks bro! Well I'm using the OEM Evo VIII pump, will I still have to drill out the sending unit? I was also told the pickup wouldn't have to be dremeled down either.

EDIT: I just searched some and saw the piece you were referring to. So I should drill that out to 3/16" then, good to know. Also, thanks a bunch for the insight, that's why I made this thread so I could get some pre-build kinks worked out so it will be hopefully smooth sailing.

[Silvertune]

While the Evo pump is more of a drop in it will still pump quite a bit more I'd drill it out anyway. The opening is tiny, so tiny I can hardly believe the stock pump works with it. Just go slow when you do it or you'll crack the end off like I did when my bit caught.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by Silvertune

While the Evo pump is more of a drop in it will still pump quite a bit more I'd drill it out anyway. The opening is tiny, so tiny I can hardly believe the stock pump works with it. Just go slow when you do it or you'll crack the end off like I did when my bit caught.

+1, Thanks man.

[Ithinkyou]

Originally Posted by wanted A GT

Seems like you'd see them around here more often. Instead of wiring the low impedance in.

!!!!!

[Dj_Bann]

Damn man your ready, build should turn out great.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by Dj_Bann

Damn man your ready, build should turn out great.

+1
Let's hope, thanks man!

[smed112233]

Originally Posted by Pale Horse

Smed did yours happen to have tiny O-rings on the top where it mounts into the fuel rail? The guy I bought them from said they were brand new rings but if you look at the pic I posted you can see how little they are. I was just curious if yours were the same. I'll probably end up just taking the rings off my stockers and throw on there.

Yours do look a little small. You could just use the ones off of your stock injectors if they are in good condition. I did that with a couple of mine.

[Pale Horse]

I'm curious, has anyone had any luck using the Evo OEM oil return tube?

This guy:





It's more rigid than an AN hose and although the metal is pretty weak, I fathom it would provide a TINY bit of support since it's connected to the bottom of the turbo and to the oil pan. I'm just unsure if it will actually fit since the 4G63 DOHC head is probably different in height (and therefore manifold height) than the 4G64 SOHC head.

Can anyone confirm this?

[Pale Horse]

UPDATE: Pics of the rest of my stuff

Got some leather seats from Albrecht09. My interior will be nice and fresh! Doing the fuel pump swap while I have the seats out as well.



Here's a couple pics of the pile of shit:





Rice-special TurboXS RFL BOV:



Evo VIII fuel rail:



Prosport Evo gauges and Tactrix OpenPort 2.0:



Zeitronix Wideband, Boost, and EGR sensors:



2G Front O2 Sensor:



2003 Evo VIII RS ECU:



MagnaFlow 3" Hi-Flow Cat:



And that's pretty much it. I ordered so much stuff from one seller he gave me some freebies



Two seat belt pads and two keychains (one is already on my key )

Anddd here's my new wheels:



Only a couple more weeks until the build begins!

PS - Does anyone know if the Evo oil return line will bolt up to the turbo and the oil pan? Or is the 4G64 block/head too tall?

[Drewski0523]

You can swap in the evo oil pan to make it work but youll need to pick up some parts for it. Otherwise you can try to see if it will fit and if it is high enough on the oil pan and fab a point to match it with a gasket. I thought about it but just went with a 10AN fitting tapped and welded to my pan

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by Drewski0523

You can swap in the evo oil pan to make it work but youll need to pick up some parts for it. Otherwise you can try to see if it will fit and if it is high enough on the oil pan and fab a point to match it with a gasket. I thought about it but just went with a 10AN fitting tapped and welded to my pan

I already have the Evo oil pan and pickup sock in addition to their oil return tube. I am just saying I wonder if the way my turbo will be angled if the Evo oil return tube would work. Otherwise, I'll just put a 10AN fitting onto the Evo oil fitting since it already has the bolts there to just bolt one on. The OEM return tube would make it much easier though.

[Drewski0523]

Originally Posted by Pale Horse

I already have the Evo oil pan and pickup sock in addition to their oil return tube. I am just saying I wonder if the way my turbo will be angled if the Evo oil return tube would work. Otherwise, I'll just put a 10AN fitting onto the Evo oil fitting since it already has the bolts there to just bolt one on. The OEM return tube would make it much easier though.

Thats right, your going angled. I forgot. I really don't know bro, best bet is to just try it.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by Drewski0523

Thats right, your going angled. I forgot. I really don't know bro, best bet is to just try it.

Indeed man. I think I may just buy an oil return line to have just in case. If the OEM tube works I'll just sell the line then.

[ya boy willz]

Can't wait to see you get the car boosted finally!

Where did you find the Magnaflow HFC and what part number is it, if you don't mind me asking? The only HFC I was able to find from them was the 53009 and it's $77 shipped off of Summit.

[mitsu3g01]

Looks like you have quite a bit of word ahead of you. Good luck and hope everything goes smoothly.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by ya boy willz

Can't wait to see you get the car boosted finally!

Where did you find the Magnaflow HFC and what part number is it, if you don't mind me asking? The only HFC I was able to find from them was the 53009 and it's $77 shipped off of Summit.

Thanks bro! It's part # 53009, the $77 pricetag sounds about right. I think I got mine on sale one day off of eBay for like $60 shipped. Good luck man!

Originally Posted by mitsu3g01

Looks like you have quite a bit of word ahead of you. Good luck and hope everything goes smoothly.

Appreciated man, thanks.

[Pale Horse]

I'm also currently entertaining thoughts about purchasing a lightweight flywheel. In that consideration I don't know if I should go with Clutchmasters or with the Fidanza. I have heard that the Clutchmasters sometimes does not work with the 2001 (although mine is a May of 2001, later model) and I have also read the stories about Fidanza both requiring different bolts as well as needing shims removed therefore mandating that the clutch alignment be done by eye. In addition to this, there are a lot of people who abhor Fidanza and I've even seen YouTube videos where the outer portion of the Fidanza flywheel just completely disconnected from the inner piece. Even searches on here will net you lots of negativity towards both companies. Does anyone have any insight or recommendations for me?

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Pale Horse

I'm also currently entertaining thoughts about purchasing a lightweight flywheel. In that consideration I don't know if I should go with Clutchmasters or with the Fidanza. I have heard that the Clutchmasters sometimes does not work with the 2001 (although mine is a May of 2001, later model) and I have also read the stories about Fidanza both requiring different bolts as well as needing shims removed therefore mandating that the clutch alignment be done by eye. In addition to this, there are a lot of people who abhor Fidanza and I've even seen YouTube videos where the outer portion of the Fidanza flywheel just completely disconnected from the inner piece. Even searches on here will net you lots of negativity towards both companies. Does anyone have any insight or recommendations for me?

Yes, stick with an OEM one. You have to remember that once you're boosted, the turbo won't wind up as fast as the motor does, a lightened flywheel will just amplify that effect. If you put in a lightweight flywheel, the car will spool down faster in-between shifts (since there is less momentum keeping the motor spinning), and the turbo won't wind up as fast as the motor does during take-off.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

Yes, stick with an OEM one. You have to remember that once you're boosted, the turbo won't wind up as fast as the motor does, a lightened flywheel will just amplify that effect. If you put in a lightweight flywheel, the car will spool down faster in-between shifts (since there is less momentum keeping the motor spinning), and the turbo won't wind up as fast as the motor does during take-off.

I'm not overly convinced that the 16G will be impaired THAT much by a lightened flywheel. I know you're running a GT35 which is much larger, so in your case I can definitely see where you're coming from, but on a 16G setup I think the increased throttle response, increased acceleration (decreased acceleration time), and hastened rev all outweigh the small reduction in turbo spool times. I wish there was someone who had a 16G and had before/after data on a lightened flywheel. Appreciate the input though man!

[XwP1ayawX]

Well, put it this way. How many horror-stories have you heard about aftermarket flywheels?

How many horror stories have you heard about OEM flywheels?

What exactly is the benefit to an aftermarket one? Saving a few pounds that you will most likely NEVER notice the difference with/without? Other than the fast rev-factor... what's the point of swapping a bomb-proof oem flywheel with an aftermarket potentially junk one?

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

Well, put it this way. How many horror-stories have you heard about aftermarket flywheels?

How many horror stories have you heard about OEM flywheels?

What exactly is the benefit to an aftermarket one? Saving a few pounds that you will most likely NEVER notice the difference with/without? Other than the fast rev-factor... what's the point of swapping a bomb-proof oem flywheel with an aftermarket potentially junk one?

Believe me the horror stories associated with the light flywheels are making this a tenuous position. I cited some of the benefits of a light flywheel already, but I'm still undecided as to what to do. I contacted importcarpartsplus.com and they told me that the Clutchmasters flywheel doesn't require any more modification, as it's bolt on, yet some people on here say they needed longer crank to flywheel bolts.

I absolutely hate how slow the Eclipse revs too. It seems like it takes an eternity to log a good third gear pull

[XwP1ayawX]

Horsepower is going to make the 3rd gear pull faster, not a lighter flywheel. Once the clutch is engaged against it, the car isn't going to rev any quicker. It'll only rev faster when you're free-revving. You're still putting the same load against the engine whether your flywheel is made out of lightweight aluminum or steel.

Meh, maybe I'm old school, but we used to laugh at the kids running around revving at everybody with their lighter flywheels. That shit got popular in Nascar, where every single ounce counts, and the car spends it's majority in high-gears. On a streetcar, it just makes it more of a pain in the ass to drive IMO.

Not to mention that it's one more thing you have to worry about quality control with, vs a tried and true OEM flywheel.

[Pale Horse]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

Horsepower is going to make the 3rd gear pull faster, not a lighter flywheel. Once the clutch is engaged against it, the car isn't going to rev any quicker. It'll only rev faster when you're free-revving. You're still putting the same load against the engine whether your flywheel is made out of lightweight aluminum or steel.

Meh, maybe I'm old school, but we used to laugh at the kids running around revving at everybody with their lighter flywheels. That shit got popular in Nascar, where every single ounce counts, and the car spends it's majority in high-gears. On a streetcar, it just makes it more of a pain in the ass to drive IMO.

Not to mention that it's one more thing you have to worry about quality control with, vs a tried and true OEM flywheel.

Are you sure that's correct? Reducing the rotational mass on a rotating cylinder (the crank in our case) allows for a faster rotation rate due to the heightened angular momentum applied over a smaller time interval. Regardless of the clutch being engaged or not, won't it still always rev faster? Honestly I'd label myself as a newb so I could be completely wrong, but physics I know, and that seems like it clashes.

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Pale Horse

Are you sure that's correct? Reducing the rotational mass on a rotating cylinder (the crank in our case) allows for a faster rotation rate due to the heightened angular momentum applied over a smaller time interval. Regardless of the clutch being engaged or not, won't it still always rev faster? Honestly I'd label myself as a newb so I could be completely wrong, but physics I know, and that seems like it clashes.

It would absolutely allow it to rev faster. Whether you reduce the rotational mass by dropping weight, using a material of less density, or simply balance the mass closer to the center of rotation, they would all have the same effect.

The problem is, you're still engaging a heavy clutch, which is going to engage a heavy transmission, which is going to turn heavy axles, which turns heavy wheels and ultimately result in a 15% drivetrain loss REGARDLESS of whether the motor is able to spin faster.

All the flywheel will do is reduce the amount of weight the engine has to move, therefore allowing MORE of the work accomplished by the motor to reach the wheels. It works the same way that a power-steering belt removal works. The Honda-fags love taking anything they can off of their car to net a .5whp gain.

Put it like this. The whole point of building these cars is to make them pull through every gear faster. If a lighter flywheel made it that much easier, wouldn't everybody have them? You pay more for an intake and an exhaust, and they net shit for hp increase.

[Beast5500]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

Yes, stick with an OEM one. You have to remember that once you're boosted, the turbo won't wind up as fast as the motor does, a lightened flywheel will just amplify that effect. If you put in a lightweight flywheel, the car will spool down faster in-between shifts (since there is less momentum keeping the motor spinning), and the turbo won't wind up as fast as the motor does during take-off.

Soooo.... let me get this straight...? the turbo wont "wind up" as fast as the motor... is it turbo spooled by a centrifugal clutch??

The last time i checked the turbo was SPOOLED by the exhaust... which happens to flow out of the ENGINE... and last time i checked... RPM is a measure of how many revolutions the engine makes per minute... now in order for this to happen the engine has a proportional number of combustion cycles. The last portion of this cycle, being the expulsion of exhaust gas from the engine. RIGHT INTO THE TURBO.

sooooo....... lets verify. the faster your engine revs.... the faster the turbo will spool. hence turbo spooling is proportional to engine rpm. faster the RPMs climb, the quicker the turbo spools.

sooo. please do tell how a lightened flywheel will cause the motor to rev faster then the turbo will spool....?

[Beast5500]

For those of you completely unfamiliar and uneducated in the subjects of lightened flywheels. There is no if ands or butts about it. mathematics and physics DO NOT LIE. and there are PLENTY of math and physics to back up the fact that lightened flywheels DO improve performance.

before reading... did it ever possibly cross your mind that maybe you should own a lightened flywheel before feeling the need to chime in? hence the saying, people may think your stupid until you open your mouth and remove all doubt.


How does a lightweight flywheel work? Amongst the majority, there are two schools of thought concerning light flywheels. The first is that they do not contribute to power output. The second is that they do. Which thought is correct? In fact both, in a way, are correct.

If we measured the power output of an engine first with light flywheel and then again with the standard part on an engine dyno, no change in power will be seen to occur. At first it appears that the light flywheel has done nothing and was a total waste of cash. This is not the case. A dyno that shows max power at constant revs does not demonstrate what happens to an engine's power output in real life situations - like acceleration. If an engine is accelerated on a dyno (we are talking about a rate of around 2000rpm a second ) it would show a power output of around 20%-25% less than at the constant rev state.

The reason for this is that when accelerating a vehicle the engine not only has to push the total mass of the car but the internal components of the engine need to be accelerated also. This tends to absorb more power as the extra power is used accelerating the internal mass of the engine components and is why a motor accelerating on a dyno will produce less power than at constant revs. Also it must be remembered that the rate of acceleration on the engine internals is much greater that the rest of the car. This would then suggest that by lightening the flywheel, less power would be required to accelerate it and therefore more power would be available to push the car along.

Now, it may seen unbelievable that by removing a few pounds from the flywheel a noticeable difference to a 3000lb+ car’s acceleration will be made. In fact the difference is quite noticeable and the secret behind this is hidden within the gearbox. Everyone knows that cars accelerate at a greater rate in low gears, this is because a car’s gear box basically a mechanical lever and just like when using a leaver to lift a heavy object, the gearbox reduces the mass of the car that the engine sees. For example, in first gear an engine will see the car's mass as only around say 250lbs but the engine internal mass would still remain around 45lbs.

As for the "virtual" weight loss of a typical lightweight flywheel in the 3-series or M3, we've prepared the full mathematical analysis:

Calculations for UUC flywheels showing exact "virtual" weight loss in each gear -

M3 / 3-series (E36 and E46, 1992-2004) click here to download Acrobat .pdf file

M5 / Z8 / 540i (1996-2003) click here to download Acrobat .pdf file

It is now easier to see were the extra performance comes from when you lighten a flywheel. You effectively "lighten" a car by more than 10% in first gear just by removing mass from the flywheel. As the gear used increases this "lightening" effect is reduced. This is why car’s acceleration improvement reduces in higher gears, to very effect in top gear. Great for drags and tight race tracks but will not increase a car's top speed.

You will see the calculations include the diameter of the flywheel, weight lost (same overall rotating mass difference in UUC Stage1 or Stage2 due to pressure plate weight differences), gear ratios including 6-speed application, and typical diff ratio.

The effective "virtual" weight losses are:
GEAR M3 and 3-series "virtual"
weight lost: M5/Z8/540i "virtual"
weight lost:
1st gear 346.5 lbs. 394.4 lbs.
2nd gear 133.15 lbs. 151.7 lbs.
3rd gear 68.9 lbs. 75.4 lbs.
4th gear 46.18 lbs. 48.5 lbs.
5th gear 36.15 lbs. 37.6 lbs.
6th gear 30.04 lbs. 31.0 lbs.


A general rule of thumb for weight loss equivalence to "gained" power is approximately 10lbs/hp. That is for every 10lbs lost, the car gains the effective performance increase of 1hp.

With that in mind, the effective performance increase expressed in gained power can be expected to be the same as the "virtual" weight lost due to the flywheel in each gear divided by 10:
GEAR M3 and 3-series "virtual"
performance gain: M5/Z8/540i "virtual"
performance gain:
1st gear 34.6 hp 39.4 hp
2nd gear 13.3 hp 15.2 hp
3rd gear 6.9 hp 7.5 hp
4th gear 4.6 hp 4.9 hp
5th gear 3.6 hp 3.8 hp
6th gear 3 hp. 3.1 hp



This gear-dependent gain is also another reason why a typical 4th-gear dyno pull may not show a significant difference - the calculations show that little more than 4hp would be detected, yet a 4th-gear dyno run shows nothing of real-world acceleration through the gears. Improvements in rev-matching and upgraded clutch clamping power remain regardless of gear.

Due to the nature of the "virtual" weight loss, typical 4th-gear dyno runs may show miniscule differences. Real-world acceleration runs will show improvement equivalent to the "virtual" weight loss.

[XwP1ayawX]

I <3 trolls

Originally Posted by Beast5500

Soooo.... let me get this straight...? the turbo wont "wind up" as fast as the motor... is it turbo spooled by a centrifugal clutch??


The last time i checked the turbo was SPOOLED by the exhaust... which happens to flow out of the ENGINE... and last time i checked... RPM is a measure of how many revolutions the engine makes per minute... now in order for this to happen the engine has a proportional number of combustion cycles. The last portion of this cycle, being the expulsion of exhaust gas from the engine. RIGHT INTO THE TURBO.


sooooo....... lets verify. the faster your engine revs.... the faster the turbo will spool. hence turbo spooling is proportional to engine rpm . faster the RPMs climb, the quicker the turbo spools.

sooo. please do tell how a lightened flywheel will cause the motor to rev faster then the turbo will spool....?

THE CAR IS NOT GOING TO REV ANY FASTER WHEN PLACED UNDER LOAD. WHEN THE CLUTCH IS ENGAGED, THE MOTOR STILL HAS TO PUSH THE ENTIRE DRIVETRAIN AND OVERCOME THE STATIC FRICTION OF THE SYSTEM

The car is going to push X amount of air at Y rpm. Regardless of whether you can rev from 800rpm to redline in 3 seconds or a half second... What is the point in free-revving faster..? It's dumb...

You aren't going to hit full boost if the car isn't in load. So that BLOWS your whole argument away. According to your logic, if my car hits 20psi at 4krpm when I'm driving, it should hit 20psi at the same rpm when no load is placed on the engine... WRONG. There's MANY other factors that come into play with spool-time. Not just rpm. The turbocharger ALREADY chases the motor when there's no load on the car, why make it worse?


Spooling is not only proportional to your engine RPM, it's also dependent on overcoming the kinetic friction imposed by both the bearing setup and the amount of weight that the exhaust gas has to push to spin the turbine (assuming that the turbine is already spinning at idle). Nevermind how big the tune and the temperature of the exhaust gas comes into play.

[Beast5500]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

I <3 trolls



THE CAR IS NOT GOING TO REV ANY FASTER WHEN PLACED UNDER LOAD. WHEN THE CLUTCH IS ENGAGED, THE MOTOR STILL HAS TO PUSH THE ENTIRE DRIVETRAIN AND OVERCOME THE STATIC FRICTION OF THE SYSTEM

The car is going to push X amount of air at Y rpm. Regardless of whether you can rev from 800rpm to redline in 3 seconds or a half second... What is the point in free-revving faster..? It's dumb...

You aren't going to hit full boost if the car isn't in load. So that BLOWS your whole argument away. According to your logic, if my car hits 20psi at 4krpm when I'm driving, it should hit 20psi at the same rpm when no load is placed on the engine... WRONG. There's MANY other factors that come into play with spool-time. Not just rpm. The turbocharger ALREADY chases the motor when there's no load on the car, why make it worse?


Spooling is not only proportional to your engine RPM, it's also dependent on overcoming the kinetic friction imposed by both the bearing setup and the amount of weight that the exhaust gas has to push to spin the turbine (assuming that the turbine is already spinning at idle). Nevermind how big the tune and the temperature of the exhaust gas comes into play.

lulz.... its a good thing you posted this without reading my post above because you successfully made yourself look like a moron.

[Beast5500]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

I <3 trolls



THE CAR IS NOT GOING TO REV ANY FASTER WHEN PLACED UNDER LOAD. WHEN THE CLUTCH IS ENGAGED, THE MOTOR STILL HAS TO PUSH THE ENTIRE DRIVETRAIN AND OVERCOME THE STATIC FRICTION OF THE SYSTEM

The car is going to push X amount of air at Y rpm. Regardless of whether you can rev from 800rpm to redline in 3 seconds or a half second... What is the point in free-revving faster..? It's dumb...

You aren't going to hit full boost if the car isn't in load. So that BLOWS your whole argument away. According to your logic, if my car hits 20psi at 4krpm when I'm driving, it should hit 20psi at the same rpm when no load is placed on the engine... WRONG. There's MANY other factors that come into play with spool-time. Not just rpm. The turbocharger ALREADY chases the motor when there's no load on the car, why make it worse?


Spooling is not only proportional to your engine RPM, it's also dependent on overcoming the kinetic friction imposed by both the bearing setup and the amount of weight that the exhaust gas has to push to spin the turbine (assuming that the turbine is already spinning at idle). Nevermind how big the tune and the temperature of the exhaust gas comes into play.

to give you some credit tho, you are correct to a point. the turbo will... have a difficult time spooling without a load. but it will indeed still spool. i can walk out to my car right now and without ever touching the clutch or anything FREE rev and produce boost.

but you are correct, it will not spool at the same RPM at free rev. but i was under the assumption that most of us drive our cars on the ROAD... and not in the air....

either way... all of this is rather pointless... it all comes down to one thing. YES lightened flywheels DO make a difference. dont believe the facts? or me who has one? go buy one. then when you report back saying how shocked you are at the difference it made. i can say i told you so.

fwiw... i have a hx40 on my 4g63 and have no trouble at all spooling before 3800.

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Beast5500

For those of you completely unfamiliar and uneducated in the subjects of lightened flywheels. There is no if ands or butts about it. mathematics and physics DO NOT LIE. and there are PLENTY of math and physics to back up the fact that lightened flywheels DO improve performance.
Nobody said they don't, but is the performance increase any more noticeable than a cold air intake on a 3300lb car?
before reading... did it ever possibly cross your mind that maybe you should own a lightened flywheel before feeling the need to chime in? hence the saying, people may think your stupid until you open your mouth and remove all doubt.


How does a lightweight flywheel work? Amongst the majority, there are two schools of thought concerning light flywheels. The first is that they do not contribute to power output. The second is that they do. Which thought is correct? In fact both, in a way, are correct.

If we measured the power output of an engine first with light flywheel and then again with the standard part on an engine dyno, no change in power will be seen to occur. At first it appears that the light flywheel has done nothing and was a total waste of cash. This is not the case. A dyno that shows max power at constant revs does not demonstrate what happens to an engine's power output in real life situations - like acceleration.
You do realize that acceleration is just a measure of the change in instantaneous velocity over a period of time... Meaning that finding the constant velocity at any given point is how you GET the acceleration
If an engine is accelerated on a dyno (we are talking about a rate of around 2000rpm a second ) This completely depends on the power that engine is making and the mass it must turnit would show a power output of around 20%-25% less than at the constant rev state.

The reason for this is that when accelerating a vehicle the engine not only has to push the total mass of the car but the internal components of the engine need to be accelerated also. This tends to absorb more power as the extra power is used accelerating the internal mass of the engine components
This has been established before you decided to come here and add your information. Hence the "Honda-boy belt removal" example provided above
and is why a motor accelerating on a dyno will produce less power than at constant revs. Also it must be remembered that the rate of acceleration on the engine internals is much greater that the rest of the car.
That would make sense... since the rest of the car isn't spinning at x thousand rpm...
This would then suggest that by lightening the flywheel, less power would be required to accelerate it and therefore more power would be available to push the car along.
Once again... this has been established.

Now, it may seen unbelievable that by removing a few pounds from the flywheel a noticeable difference to a 3000lb+ car’s acceleration will be made. In fact the difference is quite noticeable and the secret behind this is hidden within the gearbox. Everyone knows that cars accelerate at a greater rate in low gears, this is because a car’s gear box basically a mechanical lever and just like when using a leaver to lift a heavy object, the gearbox reduces the mass of the car that the engine sees. For example, in first gear an engine will see the car's mass as only around say 250lbs but the engine internal mass would still remain around 45lbs.
I fail to see what a lightened flywheel has to do with the mechanical advantage that a gearbox provides...
As for the "virtual" weight loss of a typical lightweight flywheel in the 3-series or M3, we've prepared the full mathematical analysis:
So... you have no actual hard-proof. You have "virtual proof. Meaning... theoretical proof...?

It is now easier to see were the extra performance comes from when you lighten a flywheel. You effectively "lighten" a car by more than 10% in first gear just by removing mass from the flywheel.
No... you don't "lighten" the car at all.
As the gear used increases this "lightening" effect is reduced. This is why car’s acceleration improvement reduces in higher gears, to very effect in top gear. Great for drags and tight race tracks but will not increase a car's top speed.
Not great for drags. Now you have to constantly rev-match between gears and feather the throttle to keep the motor from winding down too quickly
You will see the calculations include the diameter of the flywheel, weight lost (same overall rotating mass difference in UUC Stage1 or Stage2 due to pressure plate weight differences), gear ratios including 6-speed application, and typical diff ratio.

The effective "virtual" weight losses are:
GEAR M3 and 3-series "virtual"
weight lost: M5/Z8/540i "virtual"
weight lost:
1st gear 346.5 lbs. 394.4 lbs.
2nd gear 133.15 lbs. 151.7 lbs.
3rd gear 68.9 lbs. 75.4 lbs.
4th gear 46.18 lbs. 48.5 lbs.
5th gear 36.15 lbs. 37.6 lbs.
6th gear 30.04 lbs. 31.0 lbs.


A general rule of thumb for weight loss equivalence to "gained" power is approximately 10lbs/hp. That is for every 10lbs lost, the car gains the effective performance increase of 1hp.

With that in mind, the effective performance increase expressed in gained power can be expected to be the same as the "virtual" weight lost due to the flywheel in each gear divided by 10:
GEAR M3 and 3-series "virtual"
performance gain: M5/Z8/540i "virtual"
performance gain:
1st gear 34.6 hp 39.4 hp
2nd gear 13.3 hp 15.2 hp
3rd gear 6.9 hp 7.5 hp
4th gear 4.6 hp 4.9 hp
5th gear 3.6 hp 3.8 hp
6th gear 3 hp. 3.1 hp



This gear-dependent gain is also another reason why a typical 4th-gear dyno pull may not show a significant difference - the calculations show that little more than 4hp would be detected, yet a 4th-gear dyno run shows nothing of real-world acceleration through the gears. Improvements in rev-matching and upgraded clutch clamping power remain regardless of gear.

Due to the nature of the "virtual" weight loss, typical 4th-gear dyno runs may show miniscule differences. Real-world acceleration runs will show improvement equivalent to the "virtual" weight loss.

I respect your argument, but show me REAL WORLD proof. I want to see before/after flywheel installation 1/4 mile times on a 3g.

Another issue I have is that you're using numbers from an M3. As before, I stated that the performance gain would be similar to a couple bolt ons, barely noticeable power. Sure... on an M3 that already makes 3+X the hp that a 3g eclipse does, that power difference will be amplified. However... on a car that makes 100whp and pushes a 3200lb body, there's going to be no such 35hp felt increase in first gear.

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Beast5500

to give you some credit tho, you are correct to a point. the turbo will... have a difficult time spooling without a load. but it will indeed still spool. i can walk out to my car right now and without ever touching the clutch or anything FREE rev and produce boost.

but you are correct, it will not spool at the same RPM at free rev. but i was under the assumption that most of us drive our cars on the ROAD... and not in the air....

either way... all of this is rather pointless... it all comes down to one thing. YES lightened flywheels DO make a difference. dont believe the facts? or me who has one? go buy one. then when you report back saying how shocked you are at the difference it made. i can say i told you so.

fwiw... i have a hx40 on my 4g63 and have no trouble at all spooling before 3800.

I never stated that a turbo won't produce boost when free-revving. I stated that you won't hit full boost free revving, nor hit the same boost levels you would under load at any given rpm.

It's not pointless at all. I'm saving somebody from doing a mod that will net him SHIT fucking horsepower and could have repercussions like getting a shitty flywheel from an aftermarket manufacturer that doesn't have the same QC as OEM Mitsu-built flywheels.

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

I never stated that a turbo won't produce boost when free-revving. I stated that you won't hit full boost free revving, nor hit the same boost levels you would under load at any given rpm.

It's not pointless at all. I'm saving somebody from doing a mod that will net him SHIT fucking horsepower and could have repercussions like getting a shitty flywheel from an aftermarket manufacturer that doesn't have the same QC as OEM Mitsu-built flywheels.

And to expand on this idea further, if an engine without load can only produce X boost at Y rpm, by lowering the load even MORE (insert light flywheel), you're going to be hitting even LOWER boost levels.

[Beast5500]

your still missing a BIG part of this...

i drove my car.... installed said lightened flywheel... drove again... BIG difference.

your missing all the math above. you're in theory lightening the whole car. because removing rotational mass has a much greater response then static mass.
due to the mechanical advantage of the gear box, you removing that weight from the flywheel means your car effectively becomes 350+ pounds lighter. and also explained that translates to around 35 hp.

now that weight difference and hp gain from an M3 may not be the same for the 3g but the concept is.

in 1st gear, from the time i let the clutch out till i was at redline ready to shift was NOTICEABLY lower with the lightened flywheel.

as stated this IS great for drags because it gets you out of the hole much faster with much lower 60 foot times.

Edit: also to add to this as you said above about revving between shifts??

the lightened flywheel by NOOOOOOO means slows the engine down enough that the revs will actually drop between shifts. yes they will fall faster then with a stock flywheel but unless you take 1-2 secs between shifts you never notice. and i also drive with a ACT 2600 6 puck clutch. on the street, in traffic, on hills. NO problem at all. its a little stiffer and engagement takes a little more practice to master but is simple after the first spin around the block.

basically the only drivability difference i noticed was you can just let the clutch out at a stop without touching the gas

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Beast5500

your still missing a BIG part of this...

i drove my car.... installed said lightened flywheel... drove again... BIG difference.
I and TONS of others haven't. Who cares
your missing all the math above. you're in theory lightening the whole car. because removing rotational mass has a much greater response then static mass.
You posted a bunch of "virtual" shit. I want HARD numbers. Show me before and after acceleration times. That is proof. Until then, it's theoretical.
they are saying that due to the mechanical advantage of the gear box, you removing that weight from the flywheel means your car effectively becomes 350+ pounds lighter. and also explained that translates to around 35 hp.
ONCE AGAIN... I understand that they are saying that you are basically enhancing the mechanical advantage. I'm not arguing that. My argument is that it's NOT worth it. There are more CONS to a lightweight flywheel than there are PROS on a streetcar
now that weight difference and hp gain from an M3 may not be the same for the 3g but the concept is.
May not? IT WILL NOT BE THE SAME. That's like saying the AEM intake I stuck on my LS6 gave me 40hp, so if I put the same one om y 3g, I'll gain 40hp. Nope...
in 1st gear, from the time i let the clutch out till i was at redline ready to shift was NOTICEABLY lower with the lightened flywheel.
What good is first gear...? I spin THROUGH first gear and this kid is running a smaller turbo than me.
as stated this IS great for drags because it gets you out of the hole much faster with much lower 60 foot times.
How so? He has to plant the car better in first gear to get it to move, and he has to keep the turbo spooled in-between shifts by holding his revs up.
Edit: also to add to this as you said above about revving between shifts??

the lightened flywheel by NOOOOOOO means slows the engine down enough that the revs will actually drop between shifts. yes they will fall faster then with a stock flywheel but unless you take 1-2 secs between shifts you never notice.
You told me a couple posts ago that a car goes through 2krpm on a dyno in 1 sec, now you're telling me that is won't DECELERATE just as fast? Bullshit
and i also drive with a ACT 2600 6 puck clutch. on the street, in traffic, on hills. NO problem at all. its a little stiffer and engagement takes a little more practice to master but is simple after the first spin around the block.
What in the flying FUCK does your clutch have to do with his flywheel?
basically the only drivability difference i noticed was you can just let the clutch out at a stop without touching the gas

[Beast5500]

lmao... thats all.

anyway... about the last half there. if your spinning through 1st maybe you should invest in some better tires... or maybe AWD... just pointing that out there...

anyway. Yes.. the engine does rev faster and decelerate slower. because guess what.. it does not have a 400hp engine slowing it down... but it does speeding it up. the engine is not firing upon deceleration. and inertia is keeping it going...

did you seem to forget about the fact that the flywheel is just one small portion of the rotational mass of the engine?? just because you make that lighter does not mean the engine is going to instantly stop revving because you let off the throttle... there is still plenty of moving parts to keep it going until you granny shift into the next gear...

anyway.. the reason i mentioned the clutch, is because earlier you seemed so concerned that the car would be UN-drivable and not able to be daily driven.

ill make a deal with you. since you seem SOOO confident in yourself and that the lightened flywheel makes no difference. how about we wait a few months until his build is complete. and we will allow him to be the test subject.

i say we put our money where our mouths are. let him dyno the car before and after flywheel install. whoever is wrong refunds his flywheel.

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Beast5500

lmao... thats all.

anyway... about the last half there. if your spinning through 1st maybe you should invest in some better tires... or maybe AWD... just pointing that out there...

anyway. Yes.. the engine does rev faster and decelerate slower. because guess what.. it does not have a 400hp engine slowing it down... but it does speeding it up. the engine is not firing upon deceleration. and inertia is keeping it going...
The engine decelerates faster than one with an OEM flywheel. This is why we have things like NLTS settings, so that we can eliminate the de-spooling of the turbocharger between shifts.

did you seem to forget about the fact that the flywheel is just one small portion of the rotational mass of the engine?? just because you make that lighter does not mean the engine is going to instantly stop revving because you let off the throttle... there is still plenty of moving parts to keep it going until you granny shift into the next gear...
A lighter flywheel SIGNIFICANTLY affects deceleration
anyway.. the reason i mentioned the clutch, is because earlier you seemed so concerned that the car would be UN-drivable and not able to be daily driven.
I did? I have an unsprung clutch that chatters like a jackhammer in my DD...
ill make a deal with you. since you seem SOOO confident in yourself and that the lightened flywheel makes no difference. how about we wait a few months until his build is complete. and we will allow him to be the test subject.
For that to work, he would need to run his car at the track without it, then install it and run it again. Same boost level, same tune.
i say we put our money where our mouths are. let him dyno the car before and after flywheel install. whoever is wrong refunds his flywheel.

Your entire quote from the beamer guys exemplified how you DON'T see results on the DYNO, since the dyno measures instantaneous velocity at a given time instead of acceleration. So how exactly are we going to measure this on a dyno...?

Dyno's aren't consistant anyhow. I can have one run say I'm at 200, and the next say I'm at 203. The only REAL way to test it, is race it. If it makes the car as fast as you say, I'll shut the fuck up. I want before/after slips. THEN and only THEN will your argument have any validity.

[Beast5500]

nvm... i really dont feel like waiting that long to prove you wrong.. honestly i dont care what your opinion is because all i have to do is hop in my car and know there is a difference...

but for the sake or argument... it has already been tested, dynoed, and tracked.. PLENTY of times on PLENTY different platforms.

start reading...

Lightweight Flywheel Install Info - Tech Articles - Vette Magazine

Testing JWT?s Nissan 370Z Ultra Light Flywheel > 370z.com > 370z.com - Magazine

Dyno result for adding a lightened flywheel

[XwP1ayawX]

You keep providing dyno results... your entire beamer-quote is about how dyno's DON'T show the difference that a lightweight flywheel makes, therefore making your links worthless according to your OWN previous argument.

As stated already MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES vehicles that already make a significant amount of hp MORE than us will see better gains by mods like this. Just like an intake will yeild a relative shit-ton of more hp on a v8 than it will on an I4. Does this make it a worth-while mod on a 3g? No fucking way

[Beast5500]

Originally Posted by XwP1ayawX

You keep providing dyno results... your entire beamer-quote is about how dyno's DON'T show the difference that a lightweight flywheel makes, therefore making your links worthless according to your OWN previous argument.

As stated already MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES vehicles that already make a significant amount of hp MORE than us will see better gains by mods like this. Just like an intake will yeild a relative shit-ton of more hp on a v8 than it will on an I4. Does this make it a worth-while mod on a 3g? No fucking way

actually... if you read the beamer thing closely... it was referring to ENGINE dynos... because as you stated before the ENGINE will make the same HP as a stock flywheel... as it will with a lightened one.

and in case you didnt notice... i provided the link to a 125CC motor with a lightened flywheel on it. and EVEN THOSE dyno results showed improvement...

soooo.... what your saying is you car makes less hp then a 125CC motor... might want to work on that...

[mitsu3g01]

I thought this thread was about an individuals turbo build?

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by Beast5500

actually... if you read the beamer thing closely... it was referring to ENGINE dynos... because as you stated before the ENGINE will make the same HP as a stock flywheel... as it will with a lightened one.

and in case you didnt notice... i provided the link to a 125CC motor with a lightened flywheel on it. and EVEN THOSE dyno results showed improvement...

soooo.... what your saying is you car makes less hp then a 125CC motor... might want to work on that...

OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU'RE RETARDED

I NEVER SAID IT DIDN'T PROVIDE AN IMPROVEMENT... I'M NOT GOING TO RESTATE IT AGAIN

Your 125cc flywheel showed a .91bhp increase over stock. You think that's a significant gain? Are you fucking kidding me? You're in denial kid. You're fucking wrong... end of story. Its not worth putting a shitty part that could fail on an otherwise FINE motor for a potential MAYBE 5hp increase on a dyno. It's fucking stupid to even argue about it, honestly.

[XwP1ayawX]

Originally Posted by mitsu3g01

I thought this thread was about an individuals turbo build?

Originally Posted by Pale Horse

I'm also currently entertaining thoughts about purchasing a lightweight flywheel. In that consideration I don't know if I should go with Clutchmasters or with the Fidanza. I have heard that the Clutchmasters sometimes does not work with the 2001 (although mine is a May of 2001, later model) and I have also read the stories about Fidanza both requiring different bolts as well as needing shims removed therefore mandating that the clutch alignment be done by eye. In addition to this, there are a lot of people who abhor Fidanza and I've even seen YouTube videos where the outer portion of the Fidanza flywheel just completely disconnected from the inner piece. Even searches on here will net you lots of negativity towards both companies. Does anyone have any insight or recommendations for me?

It is, what part did you miss about the OP asking about flywheels?