# Clutch questions part 2: single-mass flywheel "feel"?



## ttwsm (Feb 27, 2011)

Still trying to understand my options for a new clutch. For those of you with a lightweight, single-mass flywheel, what are the differences? Is it noticeably different vs. stock dual-mass flywheel? What is the biggest or most noticeable difference? Thanks in advance for any insights.


----------



## lite1979 (Sep 9, 2005)

In my dealings with lightweight vs. stock weight flywheel, the main difference is the feel of the motor when accelerating/decelerating in one gear just using the gas. A lightweight flywheel will allow you to accelerate through every gear just a little quicker because of its smaller rotating mass, and it will decrease in rpms just a little faster when downshifting, but the feel when cruising is the one that's the deal-maker for me. I take particular joy in highway driving, so I like a heavier flywheel for long trips, but it's totally worth taking a ride or driving someone's car that has a lightweight flywheel to know for sure if you'll like it.

You'll also notice a big difference in clutch feel on the single-mass vs. the dual-mass flywheel. The dual-mass flywheel smooths out a lot of potentially jerky clutch situations.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

The dual mass acts like a spring absorbing shock and noise from the motor. I have hated how they feel due to having very poor feed back opposed to the solid flywheel. The single mass flywheels are much nicer for rev matching and throttle response. There is an increase in drivetrain noise.


----------



## ttwsm (Feb 27, 2011)

Thanks guys - that's *exactly* the type of info I was hoping for! :beer:


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

When I got my 20lb I was originally kind of disappointed but after driving it I do like it, it makes the engine feel more sporting but is maybe more subtle than I'd like sometimes. I'd bet this is on the daily-driver side of using a SMF, if I were to do it again I'd get a 16lb.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

It's most noticeable when not in gear. You won't really notice quicker vehicle acceleration, but rev matching for sure.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

l88m22vette said:


> When I got my 20lb I was originally kind of disappointed but after driving it I do like it, it makes the engine feel more sporting but is maybe more subtle than I'd like sometimes. I'd bet this is on the daily-driver side of using a SMF, if I were to do it again I'd get a 16lb.


16lb is great! 16lbs is perfect for rotational mass for the AWD but still light enough for fast downshifts. Before I ran a 7lb aluminum Spec one....was terrible and a bear to leave on any hill starts.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

I had a Spec "lightweight" steel single-mass and didn't like it at all. The gearbox chatter was awful and the noise coming from under my hood resembled the 24V Cummins in my Dodge Ram. I went back to the dual mass Sachs or whatever the OEM is. No, the motor didn't rev as freely when revving with clutch in, but the momentum built in caused it to engage each taller gear more smoothly. Similarly, tickling the the throttle on downshifting was more likely to rev match the next lower gear. IMHO, this is one area where second guessing the VAG engineers is unwise.


----------



## ttwsm (Feb 27, 2011)

Thanks again everyone. Good thoughts and am glad I asked.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

esoxlucios said:


> I had a Spec "lightweight" steel single-mass and didn't like it at all. The gearbox chatter was awful and the noise coming from under my hood resembled the 24V Cummins in my Dodge Ram. I went back to the dual mass Sachs or whatever the OEM is. No, the motor didn't rev as freely when revving with clutch in, but the momentum built in caused it to engage each taller gear more smoothly. Similarly, tickling the the throttle on downshifting was more likely to rev match the next lower gear. IMHO, *this is one area where second guessing the VAG engineers is unwise.*


If you're unable to alter your driving style, then yes. Being that many people have done it with no problems, I'd say it's personal preference and not a matter of reliability or functionality. I'm surprised you haven't included whatever David at NurTechnik or whatever your shop is has to say. :laugh:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

I was waiting for when my personal stalker/troll (20v master) was going to chime in. Surprised that it took him so long. He attacks me even when my post contains nothing that vulnerable to his attack, so he finds the need to insert something from some other thread that he wished I had written, and then proceeds to attack the imaginary substance. I think he really needs to "talk" to someone about his issues.

That said, driving style has nothing to do with gearbox chatter. The purpose for the dual mass design and springs or elastics is to absorb the vibrations inherent to four-cylinder motors. And there is a reason for adding weight to a flywheel —not because they had excess steel lying about and needed a place to put it. Similarly, I have read from others that replacing the heavy crankshaft dampeners with "lightweight" dampeners eventually results in crankshaft wear that would have been avoided had the dampener been retained. My motor puts out 400hp at the crank, and I've had no failures or indications of premature failure from the OE dual-mass flywheel, so I am unaware of any compelling reason to replace it, unless shaving 20 Lbs from the curb weight is an essential part of someone's tracking vehicle.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

esoxlucios said:


> I was waiting for when my personal stalker/troll (20v master) was going to chime in. Surprised that it took him so long. He attacks me even when my post contains nothing that vulnerable to his attack, so he finds the need to insert something from some other thread that he wished I had written, and then proceeds to attack the imaginary substance. I think he really needs to "talk" to someone about his issues.
> 
> That said, driving style has nothing to do with gearbox chatter. The purpose for the dual mass design and springs or elastics is to absorb the vibrations inherent to four-cylinder motors. And there is a reason for adding weight to a flywheel —not because they had excess steel lying about and needed a place to put it. Similarly, I have read from others that replacing the heavy crankshaft dampeners with "lightweight" dampeners eventually results in crankshaft wear that would have been avoided had the dampener been retained. My motor puts out 400hp at the crank, and I've had no failures or indications of premature failure from the OE dual-mass flywheel, so I am unaware of any compelling reason to replace it, unless shaving 20 Lbs from the curb weight is an essential part of someone's tracking vehicle.


Let's get a few things straight. I don't follow you around or troll you. I read and post on this forum daily, and wish your rare appearances were even further inbetween. Checking posts here, the classifieds, and the 1.8T forum one of the first things I do after going through my emails after I get to work, so don't flatter yourself into thinking I'm patiently waiting on you to post. Secondly, no one has "attacked" you or anyone else, but based on how you constantly describe my posts as attacks, it's obvious you think a little too highly of yourself and have very thin skin. Thirdly, I didn't insert anything other than the fact that changing a flywheel weight requires changes to driving style. You're admitting you couldn't do that, and went back to stock, which isn't made by Sachs but rather by Luc. I don't have any issues other than being a gear head and playing with a motor and chassis that has very little forum activity, which makes it easy to respond to your misinformation. If you feel I'm stalking you or attacking you, that's your problem. That said, I'll be here next time you post. 

Surprisingly, you're actually right about one thing: driving style has nothing to do with gearbox chatter. However, you claimed you couldn't rev match or shift smoothly with the SMFW in addition to not lilking the noise. This would indicate you weren't able to alter your driving style. Sucks for you. As for the noise, I've posted repeatedly posted that it can be eliminated by adjusting idle torque and idle rpms, as well as slightly overfilling the transmission, but you're obviously incapable of doing those things to take advantage of a lightened flywheel. The purpose of a heavy DMFW is for NVH reduction only. I ran my OEM motor to 116K miles with a lightened non dampening crank pulley for over 100K of those miles and over 85K of those miles were also with a single mass flywheel. After over 300 drag racing passes, when I tore the motor down to install forged rods, the main bearings and crank pins were perfect. There was no accelerated wear due to increased vibrations from not having the DMFW and OEM damper installed. So internet fear and paranoia has spread this rumor, which you admit you've read about (also admitting you have no experience other than your brief stint with a SMFW) and are now perpetuating the spread of false statements. Dampers are required on V engines, inline 4 cylinders don't require the level of balancing and dampening that an engine with motion in multiple planes requires. The reason all the weight is there on the DMFW is for momentum purposes, getting the car started from a stop on an incline, keeping rotational momentum of the crankshaft during clutch engagement to make changing gears easier (so rpms don't instantly plummet to idle when you push the clutch in), and to smooth out shifts in general. It's not there to prevent damage of your crankshaft or your transmission. I've run an 02M to 130K miles in my car (unknown mileage when acquired) with a SMFW the entire time, with no damage to the transmission or engine. This concludes my "attack" on you at this time. If you have any info to refute anything I've said, I'll be highly surprised.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

I have plenty to refute the majority of what you've written, but it's not worth my time, frankly. You have mischaracterized my post, in which I never said whether I was capable or incapable of rev-matching, as opposed to whether the need for rev-matching was enhanced by a SMFL, and I never expressed any statement of fact about whether I was capable or incapable of replacing a flywheel, a clutch, or any other component [in that particular post].

Some of us work hard and get to a point in life where we make more money in our respective professions and no longer need to save money by changing our own oil like we did when we were younger. In my case, I make between $300-550 per billable hour, in my profession, depending on the client, geography, and topical area. Because that rate is higher than the rate charged by a competent mechanic, I now leave some, though not all, of that work to a competent mechanic. And, although I do enjoy working on my own car from time to time, I prefer to spend much of my leisure time with my family, with my children, sailing, and traveling.

All of that said, without responding to the point-by-point minutia of your latest scurrilous response, I think it's telling that you purport to outsmart the VAG engineers regarding every component you have chosen to replace with some re-engineered aftermarket widget, even though you're not a chemist, not a physicist, not a metallurgist, not a wind tunnel designer, and not an engineer (at least not in every discipline covering the full range of drivetrain, transmission, internal combustion, automotive electronics, computers, among other things).

Finally, regarding the "Sucks for you," comment, I drive my 400hp TT on a daily basis and now have just over 150K miles (about 25K on the new motor). Nothing sucks. My car runs fine, idles fine, accelerates fine, brakes fine, handles the twisties fine, is comfortable, and garners plenty of unsolicited compliments, and although I could easily replace it with a Carrera 4s and still drive that year-round in Minnesota, I choose to keep this one. So, you lost me on the "Sucks for you" comment. The truth of the matter, as I've stated in the other posts you've attacked me on, is that you're a small-minded, angry, and petty person, who trolls these forums, happens upon one of my posts, and you are obsessed with contriving and writing vituperations and mendacious unprovoked attacks.

I run a stock dual-mass flywheel on my 400hp car, and whether you like it or not, it runs great, and doesn't chatter, and I have no need to adjust the idle with Lemmi, overfill the transmission (which creates additional drag and would void the warranty from my 02M rebuilder down in Texas) or any other Sisyphean work-arounds. And all this for what? To save 20 Lbs in curb weight? You get the same kinetic energy back from a heavier flywheel through momentum that you had to put into it revving it up. Having had both in my car, I can say that I am aware of no appreciable, measurable benefit to going to a SMFW, other than saving the eventual expense of replacing a DMFW when the springs wear out (and most people don't keep the car long enough to deal with that). And that was what the OP was asking for. He is not interested in your baseless criticism about whether or not I know how to drive a stick-shift.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

esoxlucios said:


> even though you're not a chemist, not a physicist, not a metallurgist, not a wind tunnel designer, and not an engineer (at least not in every discipline covering the full range of drivetrain, transmission, internal combustion, automotive electronics, computers, among other things).


Stopped reading right here, because everything in parenthesis is exactly what I deal with every day. It's obvious you think how much money you make is relevant, but the above statement couldn't be further from the truth, as I spend about a week per month at Honda's R&D center, and I get to evaluate new model prototype vehicles as well as troubleshoot and solve mass production issues in an automotive engine assembly plant. I just spent a week in Colorado doing high altitude testing on two completely new transmissions in one model and another new drivetrain in another model. You couldn't be further off base if you tried. Just because what you have works "fine" doesn't mean it's the best or optimized or the fear you have is a reasonable concern. From my first post addressing you....

*Being that many people have done it with no problems, I'd say it's personal preference and not a matter of reliability or functionality.*

Some of us second guess VAG engineers because we know compromises are made when building a mass production car, that we choose not to accept in the name of performance. You've accepted a big one, and that SUCKS FOR YOU! :laugh:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

Wow, so you're a chemist, a physicist, a metallurgist, a wind tunnel designer, a product engineer, an electrical engineer, and also design transmissions, gears, axles, pulleys, belts, engine control electronics, and emissions systems? Wow, I bet the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, NASA, and NASCAR are all be beating down your door with job offers, because it would appear that you're the only human being on the planet who is an expert in every field and every discipline of automotive engineering, design, and mechanical physics. Now that you've accomplished so much, what's next? Gonna get a PhD in genetics? Or how about bio-chemistry? Maybe you'll fully resolve string theory for us, or maybe the Higgs-boson particle? Perhaps Michelin will hire you to advise them on the latest bio-synthetic materials they should be using in their next generation of racing tires?

Or, perhaps the reason you apparently spend so much of your limitless time working on your car rather than pursuing your next doctorate degree is because much of your second-guessing VAG engineers has been less than fruitful.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

esoxlucios said:


> Wow, so you're a chemist, a physicist, a metallurgist, a wind tunnel designer, a product engineer, an electrical engineer, and also design transmissions, gears, axles, pulleys, belts, engine control electronics, and emissions systems? Wow, I bet the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, NASA, and NASCAR are all be beating down your door with job offers, because it would appear that you're the only human being on the planet who is an expert in every field and every discipline of automotive engineering, design, and mechanical physics. Now that you've accomplished so much, what's next? Gonna get a PhD in genetics? Or how about bio-chemistry? Maybe you'll fully resolve string theory for us, or maybe the Higgs-boson particle? Perhaps Michelin will hire you to advise them on the latest bio-synthetic materials they should be using in their next generation of racing tires?
> 
> Or, perhaps the reason you apparently spend so much of your limitless time working on your car rather than pursuing your next doctorate degree is because much of your second-guessing VAG engineers has been less than fruitful.


:facepalm: You can't read very well. 



20v master said:


> Stopped reading right here, because *everything in parenthesis* is exactly what I deal with every day.


Parenthesis, you know, the part that contains all the stuff I not only claim but ACTUALLY do every day. Yet the guy who makes between $624K and $1.144M a year, drives a 15 year old Audi even though he can afford new Porsches, can't read simple clarifying statements, and can't rev match a lightweight FW, but obviously knows more than the automotive engineer. Riiighhhhhttttt. :laugh: Maybe the reason you have to pay so many people to work on your car is that your modding direction and decisions are less than fruitful. Tell me again how much time I spend working on my cars, since you know so much about me. :screwy:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

*Clutch questions part 2: single-mass flywheel &quot;feel&quot;?*



20v master said:


> Tell me again how much time I spend working on my cars, since you know so much about me. :screwy:


I don't need to tell you again. You've already repeatedly and arrogantly told us, and didn't take me hardly any time to locate where, in just the attacks in my posts, where you did so:

"Why people that have multiple cars and money to mod cards don't take the time to learn how to mod cars themselves . . . is BEYOND me." - 03/20/2013



20v master said:


> Time? I work 60-65 hours a week . . .Abilities? Righty tighty lefty loosey? Ability to read a Bentley manual? I'm not sure which of these is beyond the abilities of an adult . . . :screwy:


I'm certain these condescending comments are consistent with your posts in others' threads, though I haven't bothered to look.

Also, regarding your thinly-veiled claims about me allegedly bragging about income: (1) stating how much I charge for a billable hour is not the same as stating my income. It's a simple comparison about at what point it makes more financial sense to have someone else change the oil on my car (or perform services that require tools, like an engine hoist, that I don't have in my garage, since I am not an automobile repair shop business owner); and (2) a Carrera 4s can be had for as little as $40K or as much as $195K. Stating that one can choose to get a high-performance unmodded car that rivals or surpasses one of our highly-modded cars has nothing to do with income. Some of us here probably spent more modding our TTs than it would have cost to buy the Carrera 4s.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

esoxlucios said:


> I don't need to tell you again. You've already repeatedly and arrogantly told us, and didn't take me hardly any time to locate where, in just the attacks in my posts, where you did so:
> 
> "Why people that have multiple cars and money to mod cards don't take the time to learn how to mod cars themselves . . . is BEYOND me." - 03/20/2013
> 
> ...


Oh lookey, Mr Lawyer man has done some digging. It's easy to take quotes out of context, sort of like....



esoxlucios said:


> I'll leave the wrench turning to you, and you can leave the lawyering to me.



...so now we know you don't know anything about cars yet keep pretending to, while admitting my expertise on the subject. Thanks. It's morning time, so I'm checking the forums, like I always do. That's not trolling or stalking you, however let me tell you what sucks. You paid to have a clutch and LWFW installed, and didn't like it, and paid to have it removed. :laugh: No one said you have to do all your own work. What I did say is that you can change the DMFW to a SMFW without doing any damage to the crankshaft or bearings, which you clearly said,...



> this is one area where second guessing the VAG engineers is unwise.


Just because you didn't like it and couldn't adapt doesn't mean others haven't without doing any damage from it. /thread. The rest is just you justifying your excessive labor bills, which sucks......for you.


----------



## lite1979 (Sep 9, 2005)

@20V Master and @Exoxlucios:

One of you has to be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree. You've driven this thread far off the OP's question, and you're just arguing with each other. In a forum-free world, you guys would probably be the best of friends, but you're letting petty internet drivel get the best of you, and I know you're both better than that. If there's nothing more to say about single-mass flywheel "feel", then I think it's time we closed this thread.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

lite1979 said:


> @20V Master and @Exoxlucios:
> 
> One of you has to be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree. You've driven this thread far off the OP's question, and you're just arguing with each other. In a forum-free world, you guys would probably be the best of friends, but you're letting petty internet drivel get the best of you, and I know you're both better than that. If there's nothing more to say about single-mass flywheel "feel", then I think it's time we closed this thread.


Oh you're absolutely right (except we wouldn't be best of friends in real life), but since I can't post without being accused of "attacking" someone, I may as well have a little fun and make the lawyer squirm. This forum is pretty boring without some drama. :laugh:


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

lite1979 said:


> @20V Master and @Exoxlucios:
> 
> One of you has to be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree. You've driven this thread far off the OP's question, and you're just arguing with each other. In a forum-free world, you guys would probably be the best of friends, but you're letting petty internet drivel get the best of you, and I know you're both better than that. If there's nothing more to say about single-mass flywheel "feel", then I think it's time we closed this thread.


Good point, a good back and forth still does not hurt providing that there are not any major insults being hurled. 



20v master said:


> Oh you're absolutely right (except we wouldn't be best of friends in real life), but since I can't post without being accused of "attacking" someone, I may as well have a little fun and make the lawyer squirm. This forum is pretty boring without some drama. :laugh:


LOL


In reference to both Audi and Porsche, the GT3's/GT2's ect use a single mass flywheel for reliability. When putting power down between 400whp and 1000whp a dual mass failure can result in a broken crankshaft/blown up transmission. My track TT has 80,000 miles and 400 hard track hours on the Four Seasons single mass 14lb setup without a single issue. Before that it had a 7lb Spec for ~40,000 miles until the springs failed on the clutch. 

The dual mass is nicer for most stop and go traffic and the average driver due to its ability to help smooth out vibrations as well as jerky clutch engagements. Some cars use clutch assist systems by pumping power steering through the slave cylinder to make the pedal easy to operate, yet with each additional system trying to make a car appeal to a larger audience can result in reliability issues. The single mass offers better engagement for hill starts, rev matching, throttle response for those of us that are willing to deal with some of the draw backs of the noise. 

The down side for single mass highly sprung clutch setups without a pilot bearing tube is that there is a good bit of clutch chatter, some of it can be reduced with a bump in idle by 50-125rpms as well as the addition of a Fluiddampener pulley. Porsche's have the same issue and require a the ecu tune to be modified in order to allow for a lightweight flywheel/single mass flywheel setup due to the fuel map being wrong for a faster responding rpm swing, not a big deal but still a couple hundred dollars after several thousand to change to a single mass setup. 

As the rebuilder stated that it will only warranty if a dual mass is used, I understand this as another way for them to deny a refund if abused. Sort of like when a rebuilder finds out the car is being used for track days and denies warranty on a motor, but then again anything motorsports is has that risk that the owner must decide if they can shell out the coin when stuff breaks.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

*Clutch questions part 2: single-mass flywheel &quot;feel&quot;?*

Before I even knew who you were, another poster to one of my threads [where you inserted your unwelcome, non-contributory vitriol] wrote of you:



warranty225cpe said:


> More friend making by the resident Know it all douchebag:thumbup:


Three or four years later, nothing has changed.

But, I do want to thank you for finally conceding that you're a forum troll:



20v master said:


> . . . I may as well have a little fun and make the [other forum member] squirm. This forum is pretty boring without some drama. :laugh:


Because that's what trolls do: they incite dischord and drama, because they're bored.

Which brings me to my next point: given your status as an expert-engineer in every discipline and field of automotive sciences, shouldn't you be in the wind-tunnel, test track, or laboratory? 

You've explained earlier in this thread that the first thing you do is check these forums when you come in to work. And apparently, you do that throughout the day, because you were busy attacking me late yesterday afternoon.



20v master said:


> I doubt anyone would call you a regular, seeing as how before yesterday, you you posted once in Nov. and the post before that was in May of 2015. You have 334 posts in over 6 years. I have over 14x that in slightly more time, so I'd say I spend a little more time here and comment on way more than you[] . . . opcorn:
> . . . :laugh:


And, by your own admission, you're a very, very prolific poster. And so I find it very hard to believe that you're a professional expert/engineer in all the automotive sciences you have claimed, while having so much time on your hands to troll forums.

In fact, I'd conjecture that you're a desk jockey — some kind of admin assistant, customer service rep, clerk, or database programmer without any pressing deadlines, or without a boss who pays much attention to how you spend your time.

Finally, you're not making me squirm. I go up against very bright, talented, and often gracious people, and I get paid for it.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

*Clutch questions part 2: single-mass flywheel &quot;feel&quot;?*



lite1979 said:


> @20V Master and @Exoxlucios:
> 
> One of you has to be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree. You've driven this thread far off the OP's question, and you're just arguing with each other. In a forum-free world, you guys would probably be the best of friends, but you're letting petty internet drivel get the best of you, and I know you're both better than that. If there's nothing more to say about single-mass flywheel "feel", then I think it's time we closed this thread.


I don't disagree. I seem to recall you posted something very similar in another recent thread where our resident troll attacked me and added nothing of value to the thread.

The problem is, one day, I will contribute another innocent, innocuous, non-controversial thread or post, and he will attack my character because he likes "drama" and finds it "boring around here" and likes to make other posters squirm. And I may find it necessary to defend my character.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

*Clutch questions part 2: single-mass flywheel &quot;feel&quot;?*



TheDeckMan said:


> In reference to both Audi and Porsche, the GT3's/GT2's ect use a single mass flywheel for reliability. When putting power down between 400whp and 1000whp a dual mass failure can result in a broken crankshaft/blown up transmission. My track TT has 80,000 miles and 400 hard track hours on the Four Seasons single mass 14lb setup without a single issue. Before that it had a 7lb Spec for ~40,000 miles until the springs failed on the clutch.
> 
> The dual mass is nicer for most stop and go traffic and the average driver due to its ability to help smooth out vibrations as well as jerky clutch engagements. Some cars use clutch assist systems by pumping power steering through the slave cylinder to make the pedal easy to operate, yet with each additional system trying to make a car appeal to a larger audience can result in reliability issues. The single mass offers better engagement for hill starts, rev matching, throttle response for those of us that are willing to deal with some of the draw backs of the noise.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with anything you've written above, and want only to clarify a couple of things:

(1) I didn't mean imply that a SMFW would certainly cause damage, although I believe the VAG engineers might have had more information available to them at the time of design [than is available to me even now] when they decided to put springs or elastics in the DMFW to insulate the gears from the shocks of the 4-cyl engine, and I might also wonder whether there would be accelerated clutch wear and/or wear of the synchros for any [average] driver with SMFW who didn't assiduously rev-match for all gears both going up and down; and 

(2) the voiding of the warranty wouldn't have been for use with a SMFW, but for overfilling the transmission, as the other poster suggested.

That said, I overfill my NV-5600 in my Dodge Ram by a quart based on many years of experience by other Cummins owners, and not based solely on the advice of one particular poster who purports to be an expert. It is, nevertheless, my understanding that overfilling by too much will create drag, and possibly foam up, or other issues (I haven't researched that topic recently, so I can't recall all the admonitions against it).

I also agree with you that DMFW can and eventually will fail, and the simplicity of a SMFW eliminates that possibility.

As you and others have said or implied, it's really a matter of personal preference. I didn't like the noise, and didn't notice any appreciable, measurable benefits when it was in. If I really need to drop 20 Lbs from the car for tracking or some other purpose, I'd rather do it on the treadmill. I use my car as a daily driver (not a track car), and my wife may occasionally drive it, so the DMFW makes sense for me/us, and helps to offset the minor driveability issues presented by the big turbo setup, tuning software, DLI-Technik motor motor mounts, and other mods.


----------



## ramone23456 (Dec 29, 2009)

20v master said:


> Oh you're absolutely right (except we wouldn't be best of friends in real life), but since I can't post without being accused of "attacking" someone, I may as well have a little fun and make the lawyer squirm. This forum is pretty boring without some drama. :laugh:


:thumbup:


----------

