We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Skunk2 stage 2 cams, Skunk2 valve springs & retainers, cam gears, Chipped P28 ecu (trust me, 2 of my friends have real ITR's with that), lightened flywheel, complete pulley kit, cusco suspension, 5 lug conversion, JDM ITR headers, 2 1/2 inch straight piping, and all the little other bolt on stuff you want.
Originally posted by kOOlrean@Jun 19 2003, 03:12 PM
....i wanna keep it all motor...
Originally posted by Gen2Teg@Jun 19 2003, 05:31 PM
first of all, the motor is OBD 2. a lightend flywheel and a complete pulley kit throws a shit load more horsepower to the wheels, so i don't know wtf YOU'RE talkin about. it wouldn't throw off the balance, it would do the complete opposite. and YES, a 5 lug conversion does work on a CRX, its the same thing as if you were changing the back drums to disks, except all the way around. and about the not needing cams, valve springs, retainers, the ITR motor already has like 190hp or 195, some shit like that, so you might as well get it all, he said he wanted to go all motor anyways.
Originally posted by Slammed89Integra@Jun 19 2003, 11:12 PM
yeah, the arms are way to long for lug conversion. The hamonic balancer he is talking about is so your bottom end spins correctly and is evenly weighted all the way across, thus there are only a handful of companies that can actually make them because it takes actual technology and not just a cnc machine. A lightened flywheel takes away from torque and just makes it so you rap out faster, but you get worse gas milage because the less weight to push at a low rpm makes rpm's drop faster thus having to give more gas. Also from shifting to another gear you sometimes the rpms are dropped too low so yeah, you kind of loose it there. His car is obd0, not obd2, sso yeah, he has to convert tons of shit but it can be done with a conversion harness. SO yeah, get your fucking head out of youra ass.
Originally posted by Gen2Teg@Jun 19 2003, 08:31 PM
first of all, the motor is OBD 2. a lightend flywheel and a complete pulley kit throws a shit load more horsepower to the wheels, so i don't know wtf YOU'RE talkin about. it wouldn't throw off the balance, it would do the complete opposite. and YES, a 5 lug conversion does work on a CRX, its the same thing as if you were changing the back drums to disks, except all the way around. and about the not needing cams, valve springs, retainers, the ITR motor already has like 190hp or 195, some shit like that, so you might as well get it all, he said he wanted to go all motor anyways.
Originally posted by eyesonlybob@Jun 20 2003, 05:12 PM
listen to chet, his itr powered eg owns.
But, another noticeable difference was the loss of some low-end torque. The car seemed to rev more quickly but not until higher up in the rev range. Off the line, the car wouldn't pull like it used to when I dumped the clutch at 3500 rpm. The inertia generated from the heavier stock flywheel couldn't be reproduced with this lightweight unit for an out-of-the-hole launch. But, once the revs climbed, the needle was noticeably quicker, at least in the first few gears.
In first gear, sure enough, there was a loss of torque down low. The new 12-lb zinger gave the M3 a maximum loss of 8.2 lb-ft of torque and 5.7 bhp at 3660 rpm. The gap between the two curves steadily decreased to zero until they equaled at 5500 rpm. At this rev range the Active flywheel took over, with a maximum gain of 8.5 lb-ft of torque and 10.8 bhp at 6700 rpm. In addition, the car revved 120 rpm more than it did in the baseline run.
let's take a look at second gear. Surprisingly, up until 4700 rpm, the lightened flywheel maintained torque with only a maximum loss of 2.4 lb-ft and 1.9 bhp at 4000 rpm to the stock flywheel. After 4700 rpm, the flywheel showed its advantage with a constant gain to redline, revealing a maximum gain of 4.4 lb-ft of torque at 5500 rpm and 4.7 bhp at 6500 rpm.
Third gear runs were tested but yielded no significant gains or losses.
In any case, it's safe to say the Active lightweight flywheel has both advantages and disadvantages over the stock unit.
Disadvantages: First, Active's flywheel did make some clattering noise while idling or under load at very low rpm, and especially if the A/C was turned on. Accelerate from 1500 rpm in fifth gear (something I do not recommend), and you'll really see what I mean by "clatter"! The single-mass lightweight flywheel cannot absorb torsional vibration from the crankshaft as effectively as the dual-mass stock unit (for this reason it is not recommended to use a flywheel and underdrive pulley upgrade together). Second, you will lose some low-end torque--especially off the line--as our dyno charts have shown. And last, the boys in Munich chose a heavier, dual-mass flywheel also to make it a bit easier to drive smoothly around town.
Advantages: First, the loss in low-end torque and horsepower is significantly made up in the upper rev range. Second, revs go up and down quickly, aiding in a quicker and easier heel-and-toe downshift. Third, there's a 14-lb loss in your vehicle's weight, which was more weight loss than the car had with the new exhaust. Fourth, the throttle response is greatly improved over stock. Finally, I really like that little "zing" noise!
Which should you choose? Consider in round one (first gear) that we have somewhat of a tie, assuming we want both low- and high-end torque--we win some and we lose some. But, that 10.8-bhp gain at 6700 rpm does sound appealing, especially knowing the difference would be a bit larger had there been more rpm available from the M3. In round two (second gear), the Active Autowerke aluminum flywheel made up its low-end torque loss and still bounced back with more wheel horsepower to play with. And what do you think would have happened had we tested this flywheel under our previous, cooler baseline conditions? Would it be safe to say 1 or 2 more hp?