binder

iTrader: (8)

what stage is that? There have been quite a few 700ftlb cars with even as low as stage 5 SB clutches. Not sure which is which from them but the stage 5 and 6 hold quite a bit of tq. I didn't know they put out a rating as high as 800ft lbs on any of their clutches.

The DSM and domestic guys push them way past the power that most 350z guys are using.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

supposedly a stage 5 jeff they dont sell it on their site anymore but can still get it through concept z. ive never even seen a stage 6 for their z applications but they now have a stage 4 6 puck listed as 800 ft lbs for max torque. the 6 puck version of mine is supposedly rated at 835 ft lbs. i was looking at the spec twin (st trim 1200 ft lbs capacity.) after you mentioned it and who knows mayby i might go for that vs carbonetics depends what south bend says monday

mayby its just a fluke? mayby it needs more break in time then listen and mayby i got the wrong directions? who knows ill find out soon though

ZSpeedPerformance

iTrader: (71)

How many miles do you have on the clutch?

Where did you purchase the clutch?

That clutch is only rated at 690TQ although I have personally seen it hold well over that in many cars.

What are you doing when it is slipping?

binder

iTrader: (8)

Ya, if they told you the full face holds 800ftlbs then they lied. The puck clutches are the only ones rated that high and once you get to stage 4 and above they will tell you exactly the tq to expect based on the choices: material, puck, pressure plate, etc.

I don't think any full face single disk will hold near 800ft lbs. I think the ones the guys were running were semi-metallic. Search for Thom on here. He lasted a few years with near 600tq on a pretty light model SB clutch then he upgraded to an even bigger one when he upgraded his turbos. I was blow away with what that single disk clutch held.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

miles are 520 on it, i drove it for 500 miles not slipping it and taking it pretty easy like the instructions said, had some wot runs but not very often at all 99% of that time is stop and go traffic without excessive slippage.

purchased it from concept Z performance they have it listed as 800 ft lbs of torque and i coulda swore about a year ago southbend had it listed as the same on there site could be why its mayby not listed anymore.


while slippping it was on the dyno for a dyno pull, it hits 20 psi boost and 600 ft lbs of torque at 4800 and slips. catchs after boost drops from engine deloading and will spike quickly and slip again. mind you thats 600 ft lbs at the wheels not the engine.

so if thats the case i need to email concept z and ask them wtf because where its slipping is actually a little bit over what your saying its rated for. (since 690 should be about 586 or so at the engine, was a 5th gear pull, but also slips in 4th.)

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

yah i just emailed concept z as well, if they are advertising it as such they better damn well fix it bottom line its false advertising and illegal >.<

of course when i bought it they advertised fidenza flywheels and i got jwt, there response was "we found that the jwt are made by fidenza for them but a little cheaper, currently in the process of updating the website" a year later and it still says fidenza.

binder

iTrader: (8)

The full face clutches do take a little longer to break in than puck style but I would think 500 miles of stop and go would be enough.

How are you spooling that 67mm fast enough to get 600ftlbs at 4800 rpms? On e85 i'm only around 400ftlbs at 4500 rpms and i'm not even getting to 600ftlbs with 22psi (652hp). I'm on a .96 a/r housing with cutout open 18" from the turbo.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

pushing alot of meth, alot of timing down low, and also im running 26 psi right now but it drops pretty damn quick. the 600 ft lbs is calculated off where the first slip takes place. it is a 5th gear pull so figure a little extra spool from that as well.

honestly look at my other dyno though, 447 at about 4900, ive since leaned it right in that area so its about 11.7:1 afr and i picked up several degrees timing in the same area with no knock sooooo.

alot more power from leaner, a decent amount of power from 4-5 degrees more timing plus 5th gear pull i could potentially see it.

i wouldnt think i would pick up that much but i was picking up about 20 ft lbs before cutting 1-2% injector duty cycle and im about 8% less now then my last run, i am about 98 octane in that area on fueling between the meth + gas and i imagine you can still pick up alot of timing down low.'

edit: i lied 20 psi boost at 4800 rpms....... also remember though im going to pick up more power down low from stock cams binder, spark in the lower boost sections is kinda high though i dropped 1.6 degrees at 4800 though since the dyno run.

im 20 psi at 4800 but 26 at 5k so it very well could be a couple hundred rpms off, its not going to be exact especially due to slight variation in tire sizes to convert to rpm, 26 psi at 5k would make sense to have 600 ft lbs. pretty much up and down though when it hits 26 psi it begins to drop immediately down to 20, build up then drop again. and looking at the map i acutally apparently have it set to 30 psi but cant get there from clutch slippage dosnt seem to have issues with other targets though. 4200 is where it really shoots up, have 4k set to 23 psi, 5k to 26 psi, and 6k to 30 psi.

pid settings at 28 p and 25 i 0 d but shouldnt be a issue since not having issues of bounce when i set em lower.(for instance setting boost control to 20 psi it holds it within half a psi.) kinda hard to tune it spot on though with limited dyno time.

i also am running it pretty aggressive hence why i back timing down 1.5 degrees above 20 psi boost was seeing about 400 knock counts.

ZSpeedPerformance

iTrader: (71)

May give it some more time to break in, That clutch will hold A LOT of power and should really not be slipping.
Thom00001? had that clutch in his car with no issues at well over 700 IIRC.

Not sure what year your car is but you may check to make sure the hydraulics are releasing all the way and not causing pressure to push on the clutch fingers causing a partial release of the clutch.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

ill check it again but i just adjusted the clutch, on initial install there was so much room i could reach and wiggle the clutch fork. now i have it adjusted just enough to fully engage without forcing it into gear. ill try and give it some more time as well, mayby it does just need more time and i just got the incorrect instructions since i have seen clutchs recommend 1000 miles before.

im pretty sure its good though because i can for sure

ill get some fluid as well and flush the hydraulics, still havnt put the stainless line on like ive been meaning too, oh yah the cars a 03 350z.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

concept z simply told me the full face is supposed to slip and i need to buy the puck clutch............ never heard any place tell a customer 100 hp loss from clutch slip was normal even from a full face.

binder

iTrader: (8)

ah, ya i haven't pushed timing, have the crazy porting on the heads with cams and do my tuning in 4th. All that I could see reasons why it pushes my curve to the right.

once I fix this stupid charge pipe i messed up I should be able to get on the dyno and push it harder.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

hopefully the new 6 puck concept z is sending me will hold and i can really push this thing, see if the 6765 can hold 30 psi to 7k redline, it should and make some insane power while doing it.

mx594

iTrader: (4)

While I agree that nothing in the real world behaves exactly the way equations predict (in this case, linearly), your statement is quite wrong. Take a look at machine design equations for friction clutches, and you will notice that the theoretical relationship between normal force and torque capacity is linear (at least, when using equations for a uniform wear clutch, not uniform pressure).

Some reading for you, look at page 10

http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-...II/pdf/3_5.pdf

T = N.f.Fa .Rm

T is torque and Fa is actuating force. Notice that the relationship is linear.

mx594

iTrader: (4)

You are correct in saying that different materials - i.e. kevlar, organic, metallic - have very different friction coefficients, and the friction coefficient has a linear relationship with the torque capacity. But I guarantee you that the Kevlar that Soutbend is using doesn't have a significantly different coefficient of friction than the Kevlar that Clutchmasters is using. In this case, both clutches are using Kevlar on both faces of the disk with a similar shape (read effective radius and surface area). So, given an equal clamp load I would say with a high level of confidence that the Southbend Stage 3 endurance will perform nearly identical to the Clutchmasters FX300.

And lets not forget that Kevlar is a registered trademark of DuPont. It is generically known as Aramid fiber, so in order to legally call it "Kevlar", it means that Soutbend and Clutchmasters use the same material supplier.

And to reinforce my point, Clutchmasters responded to my email and told me that the clamp load on their HD plates (which is what comes with the FX300) is 2800 lbs. Which just so happens to be the same as the Southbend SS plates.

DaveJackson

iTrader: (5)

No, it doesn't. It means that somewhere in "some" quantity, they use Kevlar, period.

jerryd87

iTrader: (4)

very wrong DuPont has at least a dozen different qualitys of aramid, i know because i have purchased some and they are vastly different in price and quality, what i have might be cloth but its very reasonable to make the educated guess the same goes for their other aramid products. 3 bucks more a yard got me a 10x better product, not only in look and bundle structure(3 twill weave both of them.), but also in how tight the weave is and how well it stays togeather. also the instructions i got say my pressure plate says the ss is 3500 lbs, of course might be for a different platform since it also says 500 mile break in which apparently is wrong according to some sources.

binder

iTrader: (8)

THEORETICAL....you basically answered your own question by the first sentence "nothing in the real world behaves exactly the way equations predict"

I know this because I have used their clutches. You can go by math and what the manufacturer who makes money on you buying their product tells you or you can listen to a person who has used their products in the real world who has nothing to gain by telling you his experience. You have free choice but be warned when it fails and you complain on here about it you will probably get flamed by the users who have tried to steer you away from wasting your money.

There are way different qualities of products. Rubber is rubber but they have different mixtures, coefficient of frictions, stiffness, etc. That same way they make kevlar blends. Not all clutches to the same with the same clamp loads. I have seen lighter clamp load clutches hold tons of power and I've seen high clamp load clutches fail quickly.

Again, it's you decision. If you already knew your answer and wanted to trust everything a company that makes money on you then why even post to ask people with real world experience? Obviously nobody here has anything to gain by giving you their opinion and experience.

binder

iTrader: (8)

I'm not trying to be an ******* but here is a thread of yet another failed fx400 at 400tq. So again, you don't have to believe my experience if you don't want but when there are many of us out there not getting close to the amount of power they claim that should tell you something about their marketing.

https://my350z.com/forum/forced-indu...endations.html

DaveJackson

iTrader: (5)

^LoL!! This is, like, the meanest thing I've ever seen binder do. Over 2 weeks later he still feels the need to provide more evidence.
It's not even spiteful and it's still perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, but I had to laugh about it because it has a tiny edge to it.
Take it easy, there, binder! It's a slippery slope to saying "GDiaF!!!!!"