what clutch for 400 bhp
22 November 2004, 12:34 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you never know (lol)
just getting prices and availiblity at the moment but hey its looking good but trying to keep it hush hush a little surprise at the rolling road day.
just getting prices and availiblity at the moment but hey its looking good but trying to keep it hush hush a little surprise at the rolling road day.
23 November 2004, 08:40 AM
#5
Drag it!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Flame grilled Wagon anyone?
Posts: 9,866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think John banks has the AP Organic for the 6 speed, and that copes. I have the Lateral paddle clutch which also copes, and is easy to drive for a paddle clutch.
Its not the bhp coverage you need, its the torque coverage if your going the 2.5 route.
Its not the bhp coverage you need, its the torque coverage if your going the 2.5 route.
23 November 2004, 08:57 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP twin plate "may" not always be enough for a 2.5 with a bit of torque. I am now about to try an OS Giken twin plate from RCM. Hopefully this will do the job. More expensive than the AP but for me the difference is less than the cost of going to another mapping session which is now necessary due to the AP letting me down.
Good luck with your project.
Good luck with your project.
Trending Topics
23 November 2004, 09:56 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Steven,
TBH I don't know exactly what I am paying for the OS I have not had an invoice for it yet. The budget figures that Olly gave me were less than £300 difference between the AP and the Giken which, for me, is a fair bit less than it costs for a mapping session given travel, fuel & accomodation costs for a couple of days. This was for the complete kit including flywheel & the push conversion assembly.
The AP decided it didn't want to play ball as Bob increased the fuel, boost & timing. It started to slip at 1.4 bar and 45% throttle in the higher gears. Torque is unknown but fairly significant yet not what the clutch was rated to which is 550ft/lbs. This is not to say that it would not hold on a USDM 2.5 bottom end with 350/400.
This is not the proper place to give due credit to those involved and I will do it properly when the time is right BUT I cannot give enough praise to RCM for the way that they handle customer service. Matt & Olly Clark of RCM are EXTREMELY professional in the way they handle the situation when things go wrong. To me this is the ultimate test of a company.
OS Giken here we come.
Cheers,
Callum
TBH I don't know exactly what I am paying for the OS I have not had an invoice for it yet. The budget figures that Olly gave me were less than £300 difference between the AP and the Giken which, for me, is a fair bit less than it costs for a mapping session given travel, fuel & accomodation costs for a couple of days. This was for the complete kit including flywheel & the push conversion assembly.
The AP decided it didn't want to play ball as Bob increased the fuel, boost & timing. It started to slip at 1.4 bar and 45% throttle in the higher gears. Torque is unknown but fairly significant yet not what the clutch was rated to which is 550ft/lbs. This is not to say that it would not hold on a USDM 2.5 bottom end with 350/400.
This is not the proper place to give due credit to those involved and I will do it properly when the time is right BUT I cannot give enough praise to RCM for the way that they handle customer service. Matt & Olly Clark of RCM are EXTREMELY professional in the way they handle the situation when things go wrong. To me this is the ultimate test of a company.
OS Giken here we come.
Cheers,
Callum
23 November 2004, 01:17 PM
#10
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thats strange Callum ? 1.4 bar on a 2.5 is nowhere near 550ftlb of torque 
AP are normally very conservative with the ratings too, their 300ftlb single plate has been known to hold 400ftlb. I'd be surprised if the twin plate let go before 600 to be honest.
Andy
AP are normally very conservative with the ratings too, their 300ftlb single plate has been known to hold 400ftlb. I'd be surprised if the twin plate let go before 600 to be honest.
Andy
23 November 2004, 01:50 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mine didn't slip with a 240mm single plate AP organic running 1.7 bar on the 2.5 with methanol and NF, enough to blow the headgaskets anyway, I had it at 1.6 bar midrange for some time. When the clutch was pulled out at 12000 miles from grease contamination (over zealous lubrication of the spigot had splashed onto the clutch) it looked great. It had been running 400 lbft or more for that time.
Is it possible that your twin plate example Callum was a bad one, or for some reason the twin plate won't take the torque of the single plate? I hope I will have reached at least the same torque at 1.7 bar with methanol and NF on the iON that you got to at 1.4 bar
? How far are you planning to push your 2.5 anyway?
Is it possible that your twin plate example Callum was a bad one, or for some reason the twin plate won't take the torque of the single plate? I hope I will have reached at least the same torque at 1.7 bar with methanol and NF on the iON that you got to at 1.4 bar
? How far are you planning to push your 2.5 anyway?
23 November 2004, 04:25 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
I was certainly not running near 550 & I would have thought that something around 400 was closer but the clutch was slipping badly to the point where we had to abort the mapping session.
John,
There is certainly a possibility that this is just a bad example. Given AP's excellent reputation for quality I wouldn't be surprised. Given the relatively new age of the product it could just be that it needs a little development. The torque rating was 550ft/lbs and I don't know the rating for your single plate but I can't imagine it was much more than 550? I appreciate we are probably not comparing the same boxes or flywheels though? The sad part is that the AP is very nice to drive - lighter than standard pedal feel and a civilised take up. I am sure AP will get it sorted very soon but I guess it needs more clamping force to stand much over 400ft/lbs.
I am planning to push the 2.5 as far as Bob & Matt are happy with which currently looks like 1.7 / 1.8bar and a touch over 8000rpm using Optimax/NF & WI with 50% methanol. Head gaskets are Cometic and studs are RCM. If this causes problems we'll try something else
I was certainly not running near 550 & I would have thought that something around 400 was closer but the clutch was slipping badly to the point where we had to abort the mapping session.
John,
There is certainly a possibility that this is just a bad example. Given AP's excellent reputation for quality I wouldn't be surprised. Given the relatively new age of the product it could just be that it needs a little development. The torque rating was 550ft/lbs and I don't know the rating for your single plate but I can't imagine it was much more than 550? I appreciate we are probably not comparing the same boxes or flywheels though? The sad part is that the AP is very nice to drive - lighter than standard pedal feel and a civilised take up. I am sure AP will get it sorted very soon but I guess it needs more clamping force to stand much over 400ft/lbs.
I am planning to push the 2.5 as far as Bob & Matt are happy with which currently looks like 1.7 / 1.8bar and a touch over 8000rpm using Optimax/NF & WI with 50% methanol. Head gaskets are Cometic and studs are RCM. If this causes problems we'll try something else
23 November 2004, 10:01 PM
#13
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK Callum, just a minor setback, hope you get it sorted soon 
Sounds like this is going to be a real quick one once it's finished 
Keep me informed
Andy
Sounds like this is going to be a real quick one once it's finished Keep me informed
Andy
23 November 2004, 11:49 PM
#14
Ecu Specialist
Andy don't worry I'm sure he will ... we actually managed to touch 1.7 bar for a few secs just before it really started to slip. Ran it well off the clock down the main drag at 1.4 bar and 40% tps, we were four up at the time. Nice to not have to worry about the rev limit.
The Giken will do the business, just a pity the AP fell over.
Bob
The Giken will do the business, just a pity the AP fell over.
Bob
24 November 2004, 12:01 PM
#23
Originally Posted by Andy.F
Nice one Bob, interesting that you and I seem to be the only ones running the 2.5's over 8K rpm
Andy
Andy
1. You don't have a 2.5
2. There are other people revving them over 8000rpm.
Paul
24 November 2004, 12:10 PM
#25
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by P20SPD
You running a 2.5 Andy?
Intedn to rev to 8000 with mine hopefully
Intedn to rev to 8000 with mine hopefully
Andy
ps, I said past 8000, not to 8000
24 November 2004, 12:16 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe my data logs showed 8176 on mine the other day.
does that count as past?
oh and also we saw 2.5 bar of boost by way of a spike whilst sorting boost control
Engine is still together, just!
does that count as past?
oh and also we saw 2.5 bar of boost by way of a spike whilst sorting boost control
Engine is still together, just!
24 November 2004, 12:20 PM
#27
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ok Adam, so you missed a gear It is clearly documented on 22b just how far you intend reving your engine, apart from that, with your high torque cams its not making very much power up there anyway, you would be quicker in the next gear.
It is clearly documented on 22b just how far you intend reving your engine, apart from that, with your high torque cams its not making very much power up there anyway, you would be quicker in the next gear.
