"as Peter said. If the wear is indeed 5. 5 times as rapid as the con Fe, that is serious. "
C'mon Joe you, and the REST of us are smarter than to get beffudled by a statistics "numbers game"!
5. 5 times *WHAT?*
IF the SBC clutch wears a flywheel 10 thousands in it's lifetime, that means a LUK would do 55 thousands in the same period - are EITHER of those figures anywhere NEAR accurate for flywheel wear - OR of serious concern? Some here are tossing around stats and claims like they are Gospel - without the slightest documentation!
Has ANYONE actually TRIED and documented the melting point of the LUK Cerametallic? Or are we merely dealing with wild assumptions? Do *any* here actually KNOW what the alloy content and percentage of ceramic IS in the LUK? I sure have serious doubts that LUK will simply offer up those specs to anyone who wanders in and ASKS for it!
"It is sort of amusing to call LuK and South Bend competitors. LuK is a huge supplier of clutches to OEMs like Dodge, with a smaller aftermarket division. South Bend is a comparatively tiny shop, working hard to produce specialty clutches for a few "niche" markets. "
EXACTLY! And the quaint notion that LUK somehow must follow any outfit such as SBC to "steal" their ideas is laughable - if it wasn't for LUK, where would SBC even get the pressure plates THEY use in their own kits?
"If you gotta have the power, cost is secondary when buying a clutch. More importantly, the "sweet spot" of disk thickness for a diaphragm clutch is pretty small. If overall thickness changes a lot from wear, the pressure will go down, and torque capacity will be substantially reduced. "
YUP - and exactly HOW do you INCREASE the applied pressure in a pressure plate? As *I* understand it, you do it by altering the fulcrum point - BUT, the problem with THAT is that doing so ALSO changes the applied pressure curve over the lifespan of the clutch - most manufactures seem to design the pressure plate to apply slightly reduced pressure at the beginning of a clutches life, gradually INCREASING it as the disc nears mid-life, then tapering off slightly as the clutch nears the end of it's lifespan.
Theory states that altering that same pressure plate to create higher pressure at the BEGINNING of the discs lifespan then creates a situation where that applied pressure slowly but IMMEDIATELY deteriorates as the clutch the wears thinner - it's a simple matter and choice as to whether you prefer decent clamping pressure over the whole life of the clutch, or mostly at the beginning - there's NO "free lunch"!
I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, and a small degree of speculation MIGHT be OK - but wild claims, unfounded statements and outright distortion of fact CAN get out of hand.
My LUK is fine so far - might go TU tomorrow - but as a fairly active member here, I've seen my fair share of clutch failures and problems with ALL makes, including SBC's stuff - none of them are sacred or fault free - and to be bluntly candid, if I sell my stuff for nearly twice that of the competition, I can dern well afford to send out an occasional "free" one to keep customers happy.
And I'm STILL waiting for a response to THIS question:
"Only one valid question remains as to comparing the $550 LUK vs the $900+ SBC Con Ofe - the LUK was represented to me to be good for in excess of 500 HP. , if that is not correct, who wants to challenge LUK's claim? And, if the price comparison is not fair or proper, what clutch similar in power rating to the LUK *does* SBC offer near the $550 price of the LUK?'
Anyone?
