My Bee-emm engine uses a late type 2cv flywheel (from an E-reg) with the ring gear moved back so that its flush with the rear face.

However I was looking at another flywheel today(diaphragm type again, unknown age) and spotted that there was a step just behind the ring gear which would stop it from being moved back, as the flywheel diameter would be to small. Hopefully you understand what I mean, the picture should help. I then had a look at another wheel, on an engine from an E-reg again, and it was the same.




I know this probably isn't something anybody's had reason to notice before, but is there any chance that someone with a shed full of engines/flywheels could have a quick look over them and just confirm that I'm not going mad and that there are differences.

And just while I'm asking, heavy flywheels/light flywheels, did they change with the clutch type? ie. All coil spring clutch flywheels are heavy and all diaphragm clutch flywheels are light?

Where to start?
Is tomorrow morning too late?

http://flic.kr/p/8JT4rm

Yes, all 'heavy' flywheels were originally coil spring clutch and 'light' flywheels were diaphragm type, although there's a hybrid diaphragm clutch kit around nowadays which fits onto a heavy flywheel.
From what I've heard, there may have been problems with the release bearing on those.

ken

No, any time will be much appreciated.

You've got a couple then

The heavy/light question was really only curiosity, just to check there are only two main types to worry about.

Well,
since technically it is 'tomorrow morning', the split is about 50/50 in that lot between those with the step and those without.

Nil desperandum?

ken

Any idea if the step/no step thing is age related, which came first, and when the change might have been? I think I've had both types from E-reg cars. Maybe I'll peer under people's bonnets at the weekend.

Joolz,
genuine 26,000 mile 'G' reg 2CV checked with original engine, number 0909... and there's no step on that flywheel.

No idea with that other lot, which have been sitting there for about 10 years undisturbed...

ken

It's probably as simple as different suppliers, and whichever supplied the particular batch in use in the factory at that time.

Might be a Portuguese/French thing, I s'pose.

dont move that stack of flywheels Ken whatever you do! your in danger of affecting the worlds gravity not to mention throwing it out of balance as it seems to be spinning quite nicely with that balance weight situated in Yorkshire

Sean

Fitted one of these last week. Not heard of the release bearing problem. It went in Ok and the customer seems happy with the car to date . What is the problem. Careful how you answer, you never know who is watching

Shouldn't be any problem on that front, since Roy has admitted that he no longer stocks them, primarily because of a mismatch between the release bearing and the release mechanism on the pressure plate.

I've had one sitting here for a few years now, but have never fitted it because I wasn't sure that the supplied release bearing was correct.

If you look at the original diaphragm and coil spring versions, the diaphragm type has a narrow contact 'patch' on the multitude of fingers/springs, whereas the coil spring release bearing's contact face is much broader.

Because those 'crossover' clutches are diaphragm type, you'd expect the release bearing to be the narrow type, but the one in the box was the normal coil spring type...

A contact in Australia fitted one of these to his car and the release bearing seized up in barely a hundred miles, iirc.
One day I may get round to fitting it, but you can be sure that I will test it with both types of release bearing before shutting the bonnet.

ken