Dual mass flywheel V solid steel on 07 Caddy.

carchaeologist

As above, is replacing a bust Dual mass flywheel with a solid steel one on a 2007 VW Caddy a bad idea?

George Dalton

Personally I wouldn't fit a solid flywheel to any car of my own. Plenty of people do and are happy with them though. It depends on a few factors.

The solid flywheel will lead to extra noise and harshness versus a new DMF. Some people don't mind that but others do. The last one we fitted to a Caddy we had to remove it after 3 months and put back a DMF because the customer wasn't happy with it.

The second thing to be wary of is that a lot of the cheap solid flywheel kits are of questionable quality. We have had a few lately where the clutches haven't lasted and aren't available to buy separately. The dual mass flywheels are only made by Sachs or Luk so at least the quality is decent and parts availablility isn't an issue.

Bpmull

I'd agree with George my parents have a 05 1.9tdi octavia and the previous owner replaced the dmf with a smf when it went. I personally wouldn't like it at all theres a lot more vibration and the way the clutch bites is kind of sudden it's not gradual at all. I suppose on long drives on main road you won't notice it as much but on stop start heavy trafic it gets annoying and just doesn't feel right.

Anyone that says replacing a dmf with smf causes no difference is wrong in my opinion. We have another octavia with a original dmf still in it and it's like a different car to drive.

Is frightening the extent of these dmf failures. Would put me off buying diesel again that's for sure.

Diesel savings gone out the window !

Cleveland Hot Pocket

The migration to a DMF was a backwards step for diesel tech.

Diesels should be rumbly and noisey, that's the way I likes em. :P

Bpmull

Deleted User wrote: »

Is frightening the extent of these dmf failures. Would put me off buying diesel again that's for sure.

Diesel savings gone out the window !

There was 105k miles on the octavia when the clutch went so that's not too bad IMO. If you can get that kind of mileage out of it and they don't exactly cost thousands to replace either. There's plenty of diesels that don't have dmfs if someone was that obsessed over it.

I'd not be expecting a dmf or clutch to be going at 105 k miles, never happened to me in well over 350 k miles of driving mostly higher mileage cars.

The dmf went on my 06 caddy after 15,000 Kms.

Bloody diesels.

Bpmull

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd not be expecting a dmf or clutch to be going at 105 k miles, never happened to me in well over 350 k miles of driving mostly higher mileage cars.

The dmf went on my 06 caddy after 15,000 Kms.

Bloody diesels.

But if your doing high mileage and need the economy then there is not much else choice. I know your a big fan of the Prius and according to you they are very reliable and all that. But at the end of the day its only one medium sized car so if you want anything out side of the size then the Prius is useless. So diesels have there problems such as dmfs etc but that's life if a problem occurs with it you fix it and move on.

And it's quite laughable that someone would avoid buying a diesel car just incase the dmf would fail its not like there 5k to replace. And if someone is doing high enough mileage the saving in fuel cost will cover the expenses occurred by replacing the odd dmf etc.

Bpmull

Bpmull wrote: »

But if your doing high mileage and need the economy then there is not much else choice. I know your a big fan of the Prius and according to you they are very reliable and all that. But at the end of the day its only one medium sized car so if you want anything out side of the size then the Prius is useless. So diesels have there problems such as dmfs etc but that's life if a problem occurs with it you fix it and move on.

The Prius is a pretty decent size car in all fairness it doesn't have the long front end of some saloon cars but makes much better use of the space instead, remarkable considering there are two power trains.

I also do not think people should accept it as part of life that they might have to repair the DMF, dpf etc it's unacceptable in modern cars.

Bpmull wrote: »

And it's quite laughable that someone would avoid buying a diesel car just incase the dmf would fail its not like there 5k to replace. And if someone is doing high enough mileage the saving in fuel cost will cover the expenses occurred by replacing the odd dmf etc.

No, it's a genuine concern and inconvenient to the owner.

SO save money on fuel to pay for repairs ? yeah great !

Bpmull

Deleted User wrote: »

I also do not think people should accept it as part of life that they might have to repair the DMF, dpf etc it's unacceptable in modern cars.
No, it's a genuine concern and inconvenient to the owner.

SO save money on fuel to pay for repairs ? yeah great !

Not everyone has a choice of whether or not to buy diesel sure they do when it comes to cars. But when it comes to jeeps or vans you have little choice. The dpf shouldn't be an issue if your doing the mileage. What I mean by living with replacing the dmf well if you need a van or a jeep you don't have much choice.

At the end of the day unless your going to suggest the op should sell the caddy and buy a Prius then they will have to just take the dmf as a downside of having the van. Same with jeeps if you want to pull around a 2 or 3 tonne trailer a petrol car won't be any good to you. In some cases there is no replacement for using a diesel.

LOL I didn't mention the OP should buy a Prius.

Right I get what you mean about vans and lack of choice. This is sadly true. I'd rather see vans from the factory running on LPG and ban filthy diesels altogether.

Sam Kade

Bpmull wrote: »

There was 105k miles on the octavia when the clutch went so that's not too bad IMO. If you can get that kind of mileage out of it and they don't exactly cost thousands to replace either. There's plenty of diesels that don't have dmfs if someone was that obsessed over it.

I know someone that replaced one this week €800 not cheap by any means even more so when it's a surprise bill.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL I didn't mention the OP should buy a Prius.

Right I get what you mean about vans and lack of choice. This is sadly true. I'd rather see vans from the factory running on LPG and ban filthy diesels altogether.

First time for everything I guess

Ban filthy diesels? Nooooooo! I love polluting the environment the smokier the better

Drive a petrol? No thanks, cant pull out, overtake and coat someone in smoke and filth haah

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Drive a petrol? No thanks, cant pull out, overtake and coat someone in smoke and filth haah

Can't pull out or over take in a petrol ?

From driving vans for a few hundred thousand miles, they are not exactly fast of offered with much above 75 hp engines. Or big vans with more than 100 hp.

Very few companies will pay for a higher powered option van.

I remember one company I worked for changed there fleet of vans to the lowest hp they could find because the idiots actually thought they'd save fuel but in actual fact their fuel bills went way up because the lads had to drive the crap out of them.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't pull out or over take in a petrol ?

.

Haha you knew what I meant!

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

The Prius is a pretty decent size car in all fairness it doesn't have the long front end of some saloon cars but makes much better use of the space instead, remarkable considering there are two power trains.

I also do not think people should accept it as part of life that they might have to repair the DMF, dpf etc it's unacceptable in modern cars.



No, it's a genuine concern and inconvenient to the owner.

SO save money on fuel to pay for repairs ? yeah great !

Bull. (Just as a general reply, not directed at you ML)
I do 120 km+ a day, a petrol would be madness for me.
50 MPG and cheaper fuel, compare that to a petrol that struggles to hit 40 mpg and the fuel costs more. Calculate that for the 130k km I put on the car over the last few years with very little trouble.
Servicing costs more? I do all my oilchanges, change all filters, though I did have to pay to do the timing belt, of course we all know those don't have to be done on a petrol (not!).
My CMax did nearly 250k km before the clutch and DMF went, cost me E800 to replace at an indy. How much to do a clutch on a petrol? I'm sure it has to be E50 by the way some people go on here.
There is a lot of guff and hyperbole about petrol vs diesel out there and I always love to throw some petrol (preferably a 1.4 liter sh*tbox) on the fire:
The song and dance of the performance of a petrol vs a diesel:
Unless you have something that does >20mpg, rubbish, I've driven a lot of regular petrols and a lot of them are dull as dishwater. My 1.8 TDCI is more exiting to drive then most POS 1.4 petrols. (And it would have to be that, i couldn't afford to commute in a bigger petrol or even a 1.4) And if I had a Ferrari, it wouldn't matter a sh*t on the way to work.
The HUUUGE repair bills:
Of course petrol cars never go wrong and cost nothing to fix. Buy the right car and you'll be grand. Drive diesel for 20 years, THEN you can contribute to the debate.
The noise and clatter:
Yep, a bit at startup. once on the move it's grand. Stop whining.
I'd rather drive a decent diesel (and if you do the mileage, only the insane and insanely rich drive a petrol unless it's a 1 liter sh*tbox, no thanks) than a wheezy, underpowered petrol.
If you can afford to commute in a BMW 630, good for you, I do not have a job that pays E100k+, so have to save money.

Bpmull

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL I didn't mention the OP should buy a Prius.

Right I get what you mean about vans and lack of choice. This is sadly true. I'd rather see vans from the factory running on LPG and ban filthy diesels altogether.

I know you didn't mention the Prius I meant to say petrol in general. Anyway my diesel has no dpf or dmf so a few things less to worry about.

I personally never get the point about dirty/ filty diesels comment on these threads I'm not directing this at you mad lad as I know a few people say it. My diesel isn't dirty no smoke comes out of the exhaust maybe a small bit of white smoke on cold start for 15 seconds that's it. It's not like a cloud of smoke comes out of it as you drive along no smoke comes out of the exhaust well no noticeable smoke. And it doesn't even have a dpf which would cause a lower level of smoke again. And diesels have lower co2 emissions than petrols. I know you see the odd un maintained diesel driving along with loads of smoke out of it but the same could be said for unmaintained petrols. Maybe I just don't get the point.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Is CO2 a pollutant?
To play devil's advocate (siding with MadLad)
You cant logically argue that diesels are better for the environment than petrols. Just not possible im afraid.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Bull. (Just as a general reply, not directed at you ML)
I do 120 km+ a day, a petrol would be madness for me.
50 MPG and cheaper fuel, compare that to a petrol that struggles to hit 40 mpg and the fuel costs more. Calculate that for the 130k km I put on the car over the last few years with very little trouble.
Servicing costs more? I do all my oilchanges, change all filters, though I did have to pay to do the timing belt, of course we all know those don't have to be done on a petrol (not!).
My CMax did nearly 250k km before the clutch and DMF went, cost me E800 to replace at an indy.
There is a lot of guff and hyperbole about petrol vs diesel out there and I always love to throw some petrol (preferably a 1.4 liter sh*tbox) on the fire:
The song and dance of the performance of a petrol vs a diesel:
Unless you have something that does >20mpg, rubbish, I've driven a lot of regular petrols and a lot of them are dull as dishwater. My 1.8 TDCI is more exiting to drive then most POS 1.4 petrols. And if I had a Ferrari, it wouldn't matter a sh*t on the way to work.
The HUUUGE repair bills:
Of course petrol cars never go wrong and cost nothing to fix. Buy the right car and you'll be grand. Drive diesel for 20 years, THEN you can contribute to the debate.
The noise and clatter:
Yep, a bit at startup. once on the move it's grand. Stop whining.
I'd rather drive a decent diesel (and if you do the mileage, only the insane and insanely rich drive a petrol unless it's a 1 liter sh*tbox, no thanks) than a wheezy, underpowered petrol.
If you can afford to commute in a BMW 630, good for you, I do not have a job that pays E100k+, so have to save money.

You're honestly comparing a 1.8 Turbo diesel 115hp to a 1.4 petrol 75 hp ?

Fair enough I'd rather a 75 hp diesel than a 75 hp petrol if you compare the two because the diesel would have more torque.

The saving from 35 mpg petrol to 53 mpg diesel is 1463 over 18,000 miles a year. If you get more in the petrol then that's less of a saving. And those are real figures based on actual mpg per tank and not some random trip mpg reading.

I actually would much prefer our 200 CRV 2.0L Petrol to most diesels, smooth good power and sounds great when you put the foot down.

But either way it's impossible to get a petrol van.

If I wan't economy, I'd convert the CRV to LPG and would be the same as 55 mpg diesel.

If I convert the Prius it would = 85 mpg on diesel !

Bpmull

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Is CO2 a pollutant?
To play devil's advocate (siding with MadLad)
You cant logically argue that diesels are better for the environment than petrols. Just not possible im afraid.

I wasn't really arguing anything as I wasn't sure what the comments are about. But now I'm guessing it's more about sulphur and that kind of stuff. But surely well maintained modern diesels would be emitting low levels of pollutants.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Bpmull wrote: »

I wasn't really arguing anything as I wasn't sure what the comments are about. But now I'm guessing it's more about sulphur and that kind of stuff. But surely well maintained modern diesels would be emitting low levels of pollutants.

Yes but as a fuel, petrol burns cleaner and emits less noxious gases than a comparable diesel engine of a similar size and era.

Bpmull

Bpmull wrote: »

Anyway my diesel has no dpf or dmf so a few things less to worry about.

Make sure and keep it !

Bpmull wrote: »

I personally never get the point about dirty/ filty diesels comment on these threads I'm not directing this at you mad lad as I know a few people say it. My diesel isn't dirty no smoke comes out of the exhaust maybe a small bit of white smoke on cold start for 15 seconds that's it. It's not like a cloud of smoke comes out of it as you drive along no smoke comes out of the exhaust well no noticeable smoke. And it doesn't even have a dpf which would cause a lower level of smoke again. And diesels have lower co2 emissions than petrols. I know you see the odd un maintained diesel driving along with loads of smoke out of it but the same could be said for unmaintained petrols. Maybe I just don't get the point.

Yes diesels are much more polluting than petrols, DPF removes the soot or most of it but it's not enough.

But even LPG is far cleaner than Petrol.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol

Quote from the Guardian.co.uk

Diesel fumes are significantly more damaging to health than those from petrol engines, according to research which shows that related air pollution contributes to lung disease, heart attacks, asthma and other respiratory problems.

The findings, published by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, are an embarrassment for successive governments, which have encouraged a switch to diesel since 2001 by linking road and company car tax to CO2 emissions. Diesel engines have been billed as "green" by car makers, governments and environmental groups because they are more fuel-efficient and emit less CO2 than petrol. Vehicles with low fuel economy and high CO2 emissions are further penalised by higher fuel duty tax, while diesels with the lowest CO2 emissions are not subject to road tax or congestion charges. Insurance premiums are also affected by cars' CO2 status. Last year diesel car sales overtook those of petrol-fuelled cars for the first time. Petrol car sales are now 15% lower than in 2011.

End quote.

This information can be found elsewhere. It's just all I could find at hand. I had a PDF somewhere from the EPA showing Carlow Town as one of the areas with high concentrations of PM.

Americans comment on forums about E.U air quality as being very poor. The U.S banned diesel in most cities decades ago.

There is a huge amount of old diesels on our roads, not to mention older trucks and buses, I was only in Dublin City today and the air is absolutely disgraceful mainly from commercial vehicles, Dublin Bus should be ashamed of themselves.

Our Government and the E.U should be ashamed, the air quality is very poor in the E.U and the U.S criticise Europe for failing to curb diesel exhaust emissions but the idiots here in the E.U think that man is changing the Climate with Co2 emissions so killing humans and the environment is the lesser of two evils.


Let us not warm the planet 2 degrees in 200 years, but kill all humans and all living things instead with toxic emissions.

Renegade Mechanic

What about seam welding and balancing the existing DMF? Metal quality is guaranteed then at least and nearly all the adverts Ive seen offer massive warranties on them. For someone looking to convert to solid would that be a good idea?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Is CO2 a pollutant?
To play devil's advocate (siding with MadLad)
You cant logically argue that diesels are better for the environment than petrols. Just not possible im afraid.

Co2 is a harmless gas in the Atmosphere, without it life on earth is not possible.

This is what the media fail to make clear to the public, Co2 is seen as evil and dirty, even car manufacturers talk about Co2 emissions and not about the actual toxic emissions, It makes my blood boil all this man made warming BS!

Bpmull

I was just reading up on it there. Diesels produce 26 % more Nox nitrogen oxide and 100 % more particulate matter. Petrols produce higher CO hydrocarbons and co2 and technically a petrol engine will produce far more Nox than a Diesel engine if the petrol doesn't have a cat. Effectively the cat makes a huge difference to a petrol engine. But I see your point diesel are producing more Nox which can cause sickness cancer etc. anyway you learn something new everyday.

Bpmull

Bpmull wrote: »

anyway you learn something new everyday.

Well you see this is where the media today fail badly, there used to be proper journalism where they would investigate and print facts but today they just repeat the crap that other journalists print.

The most worrying thing though is that the Government are clueless and who they have advising them should be fired.

Being in Dublin City today made me realise how bad air quality is and Dublin Buses are disgracefully filthy, yet the attention is on reducing car emissions when commercial vehicles are far far dirtier, but hey, they run on Diesel and it will save the planet. Madness !

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Deleted User wrote: »

Co2 is a harmless gas in the Atmosphere, without it life on earth is not possible.

This is what the media fail to make clear to the public, Co2 is seen as evil and dirty, even car manufacturers talk about Co2 emissions and not about the actual toxic emissions, It makes my blood boil all this man made warming BS!

That was the point I was making, that CO2 is not a pollutant
Plants emit it at night ffs

dr.fuzzenstein

Bit of simple math here, kids, so pay attention:

Diesel:
6l/100 km
35000 km a year
2100 liters of diesel
diesel at E1.50=E3150 total fuel cost for the year.

Petrol:
8l/100 km
35000 km a year
2800 liters of petrol
petrol at E1.60+E4480 total fuel cost a year.

Total savings on fuel on diesel over petrol: E1330
Speaks for itself.

PS:
I'm just waiting till electric cars become a viable second hand alternative, but with the battery racket, they will never be bangernomics
Otherwise, if my pay gets bumped up to E150k, then I'll be in a V8 Merc that pisses petrol out the exhaust.

Renegade Mechanic

Hey, if the injectors, pump, turbo, flywheel, particle filter and egr all go in the one year youll be able to recoup the costs in just five! :eek: :P

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

PS:
I'm just waiting till electric cars become a viable second hand alternative, but with the battery racket, they will never be bangernomics

Think Tesla, their prototype is still going strong with over 350,000 miles and the battery is still good.

The roadsters still have good batteries.

Perhaps you can import a Model S sport 85 kwh in 5 years. 0-60 in 4.4 seconds .

It won't be too long before Tesla have 5 min recharging. Already their superchargers can replace a "real" 125 miles of range in 20 mins.

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

Think Tesla, their prototype is still going strong with over 350,000 miles and the battery is still good.

The roadsters still have good batteries.

Perhaps you can import a Model S sport 85 kwh in 5 years. 0-60 in 4.4 seconds .

It won't be too long before Tesla have 5 min recharging. Already their superchargers can replace a "real" 125 miles of range in 20 mins.

Makes sense, but not enough room for the dogs!;)

wildefalcon

Leaving the Petrol vs Diesel debate aside for a moment, I must admit being a convert to the Dual Mass Flywheel.

They take the shock of gear changes away from the gearbox, making it last much longer. Smoother change, easier on the clutch.

Sure, they fail, like a clutch, but are much cheaper to fix than replacing the gearbox.

And with the torque that a modern diesel produces, the gearbox is under a lot of strain (especially with me driving it!!).

Back on the off-topic = Don't forget that a some modern petrols have DMFs now.

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

Co2 is a harmless gas in the Atmosphere, without it life on earth is not possible.

This is what the media fail to make clear to the public, Co2 is seen as evil and dirty, even car manufacturers talk about Co2 emissions and not about the actual toxic emissions, It makes my blood boil all this man made warming BS!

There I absolutely agree with you 100%.
The current thinking is almost like, it doesn't matter what toxic sh*t anyone or anything spews out, as long as it's not CO2.
The whole thing was borne out of carbon credits.
Yeah, right. In order to save the planet, we must give billions to a nameless, faceless, shady organisation. great, i can feel the temperature drop already, some people have all our money, hooray, the atmosphere is saved!
The problem is that there is a worldwide, concerted effort going on between the media, scientists and the politicians to fight a selfless and ceaseless war to save the planet bilk the stupid masses for all their money and people are buying that crap hook, line and sinker.

NuckingFacker

I run a good few diesels, someone totted it up today and it's around 22 all told. When a dmf goes, a smf goes in. No DMFs, no matter what. I've not noticed a difference, but then I'd not be hugely bothered about smoothyness, more about keep-going-ey-ness. On the transits, I have not ever noticed even a slight negative difference between dmf and smf, say what you like. On the 115s a smf takes out some of the gutless "elastic-bandeyness" of the motor when taking up drive, compared to a dmf. I think the whole "dmfs make a big difference" arguement is just blindly suporting a daft, retrograde piece of engineering. So, having 2" to 4" of "play" in a flywheel spinning at 900 rpm makes a big difference? Yeah, right. It's maxed out in travvel within a millisecond anyway.

corkgsxr

Bpmull wrote: »

I know you didn't mention the Prius I meant to say petrol in general. Anyway my diesel has no dpf or dmf so a few things less to worry about.

I personally never get the point about dirty/ filty diesels comment on these threads I'm not directing this at you mad lad as I know a few people say it. My diesel isn't dirty no smoke comes out of the exhaust maybe a small bit of white smoke on cold start for 15 seconds that's it. It's not like a cloud of smoke comes out of it as you drive along no smoke comes out of the exhaust well no noticeable smoke. And it doesn't even have a dpf which would cause a lower level of smoke again. And diesels have lower co2 emissions than petrols. I know you see the odd un maintained diesel driving along with loads of smoke out of it but the same could be said for unmaintained petrols. Maybe I just don't get the point.

A dpf is merely a filter to hold particles while you do city driving to release it on dualers and motorways.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Is CO2 a pollutant?
To play devil's advocate (siding with MadLad)
You cant logically argue that diesels are better for the environment than petrols. Just not possible im afraid.

Yep alot worse than petrols air quality will suffer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you see this is where the media today fail badly, there used to be proper journalism where they would investigate and print facts but today they just repeat the crap that other journalists print.

The most worrying thing though is that the Government are clueless and who they have advising them should be fired.

Being in Dublin City today made me realise how bad air quality is and Dublin Buses are disgracefully filthy, yet the attention is on reducing car emissions when commercial vehicles are far far dirtier, but hey, they run on Diesel and it will save the planet. Madness !

Public busses conduct there own doe testing. Id imagine very little fail

Deleted User wrote: »

Think Tesla, their prototype is still going strong with over 350,000 miles and the battery is still good.

The roadsters still have good batteries.

Perhaps you can import a Model S sport 85 kwh in 5 years. 0-60 in 4.4 seconds .

It won't be too long before Tesla have 5 min recharging. Already their superchargers can replace a "real" 125 miles of range in 20 mins.

Mm teslas claims have been exaggerated and all courts have rules against them when they sued people for giving bad reviews

corkgsxr

O and iv drove a 2 l avensis with a smf for years and found it fine

corkgsxr

corkgsxr wrote: »

Mm teslas claims have been exaggerated and all courts have rules against them when they sued people for giving bad reviews

I think it's fairly established that the model S will get anything between 250 and 340 miles per charge, driving style dependent like all cars.

As for the 0-60 ? no clue, but can't say it's slow given the size of it, it's a monster.