I talked to jason at performance` nissan about the tilton clutch flywheel combo for the 3.0 but he never got back to me

 

Dont waste your time with him. The Tilton does NOT fit the 3.0 and Performance Nissan charges too much for it anyway.

 

RWD Silvia clutches fit the FWD VQ30s. U can get a whole **** load of diff clutches to pick from... U know Silvia is like the Civic of Japan....

 

Is that a -K in a 4th gen?

 

4th gen ??? noo friggn way.... I wouldn't own a 4th gen- sorry guys. Its a B13 Sentra.

 

Doh! I just saw the engine and that it wasn't a 5th gen...definitely a B13.

How much work did that take? I got a GA16 B13 that needs a new engine.

 

dang, that sounds almost too good to be true.

 

I've read the comments on this thread and the articles referenced by Ice but I'm not sure that I've seen any empirical evidence that the flywheel will cost you in the 1/4 mile.

For example, in one Z article, they actually improved trap speed and 0-60 mph after adding the flywheel, lsd and different tires (not more grip but better for powerslides). In short, the only thing they added to make the car go faster was the flywheel - and it went a bit faster.

The other article just mentions in passing that the flywheel might not be better for daily driving and drag racing.

In concept, I can see that stored energy could be an advantage. I guess it comes down to how much gain you get from the flywheel.

As for the bogging issue - I can assure you that I won't have that issue at the track since I launch from 4-5K.

I don't want to buy the flywheel if I will LOSE in the 1/4 mile - since I do drag race. However, if I can gain in responsiveness and gain in the 1/4 mile that's the ticket.

Has anyone actually dyno'd a flywheel on the 5th gen max?? I'd do it but can't since I've made changes since my last dyno - and can't redyno with my clutch in its current state.

 

I don't have any hard evidence, but I'm sure there's plenty available somewhere. However, general concensus is that MOST cars with lightweight flywheels will gain time in the 1/4, since the lost inertia carried into the next gear isn't offset by the faster ability to rev. Maybe that depends on the cars powerband, weight, or flywheel/clutch/etc. mass, I don't really know.

As far as the article you're referring too, I'd say that's one BAD example because of the multiple mods and 1/4 times which depends on a lot of factors such as weather, driver, launch, etc. and without the time slips/weather conditions to analyze, it doesn't hold much weight IMO. It could very likely have gained, however at least from what I've *read* many many places, it's not the norm. IMO...a before/after lightweight flywheel dyno and Cartest2000 simulation is the BEST approach to show where/why the flywheel loses performance in the 1/4.*cough*SteVTEC*cough*

I'd still say get a moderately lighter flywheel for everyday driving and as Jeff said, ability to get into your powerband faster, since we're not talking about purely track cars here.

If I come across any hard evidence in my magazines or on the net, I'll make sure to bring it here. I've seen some good articles/info, but always figured it was a topic already beat to death and general knowledge, so I guess I was wrong and I'll see what I can dig up in the future.

 

Not saying you are wrong at all. I think the theory makes sense and I've read the same thing.

I'd be surprised if cartest took flywheel mass/weight into account in its calculations. The flywheel should dyno higher which means that any computer based test will result in slightly better times. If it does take it into account that's great.

The question I have is - how much difference does a lighter flywheel make when you launch our max from 4500 rpms and make 2 shifts? Little chance of bogging with that launch. I read mike's post and it appears he launches differently from me. I'll tell you this, though, if I could hit a 2.14 60' I'd be damn happy - and faster than the 14.39/high 98 I've run (I think my 60' was a full .1 higher).

What might be the biggest impact is if the lighter flywheel loses some of the torque multiplying effect of slipping the clutch from 4500 rpms. I have found that the key for my car is how high my revs are at the end of the 60' - not just the 60' number. The higher they are, the closer I am to Vias - and faster the car is. Will that get better or worse with the flywheel??

Maybe the traditional logic is that the gains from the flywheel just aren't enough to offset that inertial loss. But, it could be somewhat application specific. It SEEMS from that Z article that the addition of the lightweight flywheel didn't hurt that much.

My main concern is that I don't want to lose .1 or .2 off my 1/4. So, I'm just trying to satisfy myself that downside won't happen. Almost impossible with all the variables. If I can do that, I'll just get it and put it on based on what I've heard on this forum.

 

Here's a much better article analyzing a lightened flywheel on an older M3(and supporting 1/4 mile loss) .

http://europeancarweb.com/projectcars/0109ec_projbmw/

(courtesy of the old madmax2k - the, to my knowledge, current NA non-slick 2k/2k1 recordholder at 14.38 . . . who now drives a very fast granny-mobile and bratwurst wagon) LOL.

 

just when I think im going to add the flywheel, im reminded it could be a wrong move.

 

It all depends on your driving style. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to have to dump the clutch @6600 RPM to launch the car on slicks. The flywheel weight is most effective at launching the vehicle. If you can adjust your launching style enough to compensate, a lighter one would be beneficial going down the track.

 

Obviously, if I'm launching at 4-5k anyway, it wouldn't hurt my feelings either. But, I'm pretty sure I'm going to skip it.

 

SR20DEN is completly right bout the flywheel causing peoples 1/4 times to varry. I for one went drag racing this April 14th with the Maxima crew from Chicago here... and my best was a 15.1 cause I constantly bogged out of the hole. Once I bog.... my 2nd and 3rd gear just feel boged also. My MPH was 91 with every bolt on, and the car pushes the power to the ground like it should. So I know its all in the launch. But since I got only 2 runs that day in about 5 hours I gave up. Plus I dont intend to make my Maxima a 1/4 queen. She shines around the race track !

 

What did you run before the flywheel and how do you launch? It sounds as if
you launch differently than I do.

As I said, I typically slip the clutch from 4-5k for the best launch and times. So I'm not sure that I would bog. There is no question with the 2k/2k1 5spd that's the best way to launch.

I've got most of the bolt-ons and my best is 14.39 @ high 98 fully loaded without slicks. I would hate to add the flywheel and have no chance of besting that mark.

 

Max_Gator,

Is that on a stock clutch and what method do you use to "hold" 4-5K at the line with the ECU fighting you?

Thanks.

 

Yes - stock clutch. That's probably why I need a new one!

Not sure what you mean about holding the rpms with the ecu fighting me? I just put the car in 1st, push the clutch in, and rev to whatever rpm level I've chosen (or at least close - I try to stage first so I've got time to get and hold it).

 

Hmmmnnnn...I get fuel-cut from the ECU until the RPM drop down to below 1800rpm, then it bounces around.

I can spike it to ~3000rpm and then try and slip it, but that's pretty hit-or-miss.

So, you're saying you can hold 4000rpm for without having to feather the pedal at all?

 

Absolutely. No question. I've done it so many times that I couldn't even count. In fact, I sometimes get aggravated when I stage first and the guy next to me takes forever - and my engine is sitting there revving at 4500 or so.

You've got something strange going on. I did have the fuel cut fix done. But, as I recall, even with that the problem was only below 2k or 2500.

 

Maybe it's a Cali-spec thing...screwed again~!

Yeah, I can't hold **** above 2Krpm for more then a second or two. Plus, the FSM says that's on purpose during high rpm/no-load situations. I'm going to figure out a way around it SOMEDAY.

 

Oh yeah, the Fuel Cut TSB didn't really make a difference, maybe upped it a little, but anything over 2000rpm is the same problem.

 

That's really really weird. Where did you find that in your fsm? I want to see what it says in mine.

We could have actually found another difference between the fed and cali spec.

I'm going to email a friend who just got rid of his 2k cali and see if he had that issue. We went to the track together many times and I don't recall him ever mentioning it.

 

I've heard of others with this, but it's in the "EC section" under "Fuel Cut Control(at no load & high engine speed)", which at least in my version is page EC-32.

 

Spoke to my buddy - former 2k cali owner and he said he never had any problem holding the rpms. Maybe it is a 2k1 thing.

I wonder if all 2k1s have the same issue??

 

It's more then a 2K1 5spd issue.

Once the search comes back up, I'll see what I can dig up.

 

Since it says that in your fsm, it must be a change beginning in 2k1. I only asked on the other post about 2k1s to see if all your bretheren had the same issue. I'd bet it carries over into the 3.5s.

As for the search function, good luck.

It's really a shame that the search function doesn't work. It severely limits the benefit of these forums and now you can't say "go search" when someone posts the 4 billionth question about intakes.

 

I *HEAR* that~!

Anyways, I'm pretty sure this was brought up many times before and not just by 2K1 guys.

However, maybe it's a countermeasure to keep guys from dumping the clutch and breaking motor mounts all the time. I know the inputs are vehicle speed and no load, so if it's a 2K1 only thing, I'll try and see if a 2K cali ECU is interchangeable or if I can fool the speed sensor or load calculation to get around it.

So, apparently you didn't find that in your FSM? Did you try searching for "Fuel Cut"?