87 2.9L Performance clutch options?

[JohnAllen]

So yeah decided to go the 4.0L Clutch Upgrade route and it's now getting installed at the shop.

So you have to get a new flywheel and starter to that swap??

 

[rusty ol ranger]

So you have to get a new flywheel and starter to that swap??

I imagine he did. But seein as how this thread is 8 years old....

 

[adsm08]

So you have to get a new flywheel and starter to that swap??

Yes. The 4.0 uses a bigger flywheel than the 2.9, which is why this is an upgrade. Better engine dampening, more grabbing area.

The 4.0's clutch disc is nearly the same size as the 2.9's flywheel. This means the 4.0's flywheel has to be bigger so it can accept the bigger friction disc.

That means that the nose and drive gear on the starter also have to be repositioned so the pinion on the starter can engage the ring on the flywheel properly.

 

[JohnAllen]

Yes. The 4.0 uses a bigger flywheel than the 2.9, which is why this is an upgrade. Better engine dampening, more grabbing area.

The 4.0's clutch disc is nearly the same size as the 2.9's flywheel. This means the 4.0's flywheel has to be bigger so it can accept the bigger friction disc.

That means that the nose and drive gear on the starter also have to be repositioned so the pinion on the starter can engage the ring on the flywheel properly.

Ok. That makes sense. Thank you.

 

[ZeroHour]

8 yrs, 8 days, still a good read @rustolranger , I'm accustomed to old forums saying 'didn't you use the search first before making a new post?' I learnt' somethin' today


I'm curious though, aren't you losing a hair of power if you're going to the bigger/heavier flywheel for one thing? Furthermore, what's really the gain by going to stronger clutch if you're not adding or gaining more power? Is it going to last longer, or just simply feel different?

 

[Paulos]

I've been using Centerforce II clutches in my Ranger for close to 15 years and they work great. Nothing like those spongy OEM clutches. If I was doing a lot of towing, and my drivetrain was suitable for that, I could see going with the 4.0 clutch. Maybe.

 

[adsm08]

8 yrs, 8 days, still a good read @rustolranger , I'm accustomed to old forums saying 'didn't you use the search first before making a new post?' I learnt' somethin' today


I'm curious though, aren't you losing a hair of power if you're going to the bigger/heavier flywheel for one thing? Furthermore, what's really the gain by going to stronger clutch if you're not adding or gaining more power? Is it going to last longer, or just simply feel different?

Adding a heavier flywheel doesn't rob a ton of power. It will make the engine rev up a little slower, but not a noticeable amount. It does add dampening and make it idle smoother. Part of the job of a flywheel is to add rotating mass to help carry the crank through the last part of a compression stroke, after the corresponding power stroke has stopped adding power to the system. As long as you don't go ridiculously heavy it makes adding weight to the flywheel roughly power neutral.

I noticed a pedal feel difference right away. It felt better, engagement was smoother, and it seemed like I started rolling sooner. I also noticed it seemed easier to get launched when towing, which was big for me.

 

[ZeroHour]

I noticed a difference when replacing my clutch as well, but I went from almost gone to brand new so anything would have felt better (slave cylinder, plate, clutch, and flywheel I replaced 3 weeks ago). My question would be was that the case for both of you, or did you have a perfectly good 2.9 clutch and went to the 4.0 because you wanted to and noticed the differences?

 

[adsm08]

I noticed a difference when replacing my clutch as well, but I went from almost gone to brand new so anything would have felt better (slave cylinder, plate, clutch, and flywheel I replaced 3 weeks ago). My question would be was that the case for both of you, or did you have a perfectly good 2.9 clutch and went to the 4.0 because you wanted to and noticed the differences?

I have gone both ways. I had a brand new 2.9 clutch put in my Ranger shortly after I started driving it, and managed to chew through it in about 5 years, due to my driving conditions (lots of stop and go rush hour BS). My trans started dying and so I went to the M5OD when that happened. It just so happened that on my way home from college, when I was going to do the trans swap and the clutch with it, the clutch started slipping bad. I'm pretty sure about 30 miles from home the slave crapped and smoked the clutch on the rest of the trip.

Now on my B2, which I'd owned a little less than a year, the clutch disc was in good shape, but the slave crapped out suddenly, and I saw no point in pulling the trans and not putting a clutch in, so it got a 4.0 clutch at that time, even though the one in it wasn't that old, which I learned when I pulled the trans.

I noticed the same differences both times.

You also get less slip and more clamping area, which will mean overall better performance of the clutch itself.

The 2.9's 8 7/8" clutch has a surface area of 192.15 sq in while the 4.0's 10" clutch has a surface area of 246.5 sq in, that's a significant difference.

 

[ZeroHour]

Would you say it's no extra shock to the rest of the drivetrain? (obviously driving habits considered)