Jump to content
SAU Community

Not Using Dowel Pin When Mounting Flywheel?

Rolls
 Share

Recommended Posts

R32Abuser Mentor

R32Abuser

Posted
Posted

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

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

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

No references to back your argument by any chance?

R32Abuser Mentor

R32Abuser

Posted
Posted (edited)

MrStabby has it right.

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

Let me ask you this...

Assume the clutch and flywheel assembly is at rest.

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

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

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

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

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

Also,

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

Edited by R32Abuser
R32Abuser Mentor

R32Abuser

Posted
Posted (edited)

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

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

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

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

elohim_imanu

Posted
Posted

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

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

  • 2 months later...
BK Grand Master

BK

Posted
Posted

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

1. Dowel is for locating

2. Bolts press two surfaces together

 

..and this thread made it to page 2 !

FFS...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • turbo76lx
      Torana Lx Gtr Hatch, Lots Of Pictures

      By turbo76lx · Posted

      Got the gearbox in and the front drive shafts.
    • rahilp
      Requirements for Xenon Headlights? (Possible Solution)

      By rahilp · Posted

      Hi There I went through a rabbit hole of reading about Xenon headlights and the ADR regulations for having them installed. As people have been defected by running factory xenon I was researching in ways to make them compliant. Everyone always say needs to be self leveling and have washer installed, which I don't necessarily agree with. For this argument I'm using R34 as reference as I'm more aware on the construction of the headlight compared to the R33 Xenon, which may still be the exact same case.   For the self leveling clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles As you can see the bold text "these manually adjustable devices from driver seats" are fine to use. As Series 1 Xenon model headlights do have a 4 level adjuster on the right near the ignition (however not series 2) then these model are consider compliant in that argument.   For the Self Cleaning aspect of this argument clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles Now i can understand the argument that Xenon will need a washer as they are over 2000 lumens, but I clicked on the 12 at the end of that sentence and it takes me to the end notes which states R34 for headlight lenses are plastic, not sure if PL is mark as I don't currently have my skyline to confirm that marking is there. But could you not technically get a lenses with the PL marking on it and then get away with the argument that you need a washer. I went through a quick read of the adr and might have missed something else that may cause them to be non-complaint.    But wouldn't these technically be complaint headlights   Would love to hear other people input on this and shed some light   Edit In regard to the the washer portion I might be mistaken ADR 45 (which I believe is Regulation NO.45) states 12 cd (candela) I dont understand that portion in regarding to calculating the candela if anyone can shed some light. Otherwise I guess throw in a washer for the headlight and you definitely comply.
    • r32-25t
      R32 Gtr Long Term Love, Now Project

      By r32-25t · Posted

      Took it to all Japan day, flogged the hell out of it and took it all, am a very very happy man  don’t know how that ended up in Greg’s thread before
    • ARB26
      Stagea 260RS seats

      By ARB26 · Posted

      Hey Nismo, any chance in the world you still have these seats?
    • Lithium
      Forced Performance Hta Turbos

      By Lithium · Posted

      I'd say closer to OG GTX3582R, just smaller trim - so 59mm inducer/82mm exducer as opposed to 62/82 for the first gen GTX3582R. Yeah EFRs were boss, the EFR8474 is still an absolute beast and it perplexes me that people still go to things like Turbosmart/Garrett etc when the results people are getting with those are pretty unremarkable compared to what you could get with a turbo available well before those options came out.  DriftSquid (I think) "upgraded" from an EFR9174 to a Turbosmart turbo and promised a comparison video - and kinda shuffled awkwardly and did a bit of diversion from the fact that they didn't get any improvement going to the currently massively hyped brand of turbo from a turbo that was a bit of a frankenstein that had been well superceded in it's own range before the Turbosmart unit he put on there even came out. I suspect the EFR would outperform most Xonas for what a lot of less-insane RB owners would go for, in the 400-600kw range but the Xonas are looking hard to beat up to maybe in the mid 700kw range at this stage- basically where EFRs don't really reach, and before the Precision turbos take over.  What the Xonas do well in the "EFR range" is be easier to package etc, and work very well if a divided housing doesn't suit your application.  
×
×
  • Create New...