Can30Diesel
Full Access Member
I don't know who told you this, but its horse hockey. The DMF exists ONLY to diminish the noise. I'm running 4 ZF-5's with Lucky Mod conversion flywheels in my fleet, and NO Issues other than noise, and when used with a sprung clutch disc, noise not that bad. I ran my diesel Bronco with a solid clutch disc for 3 years as a daily driver ON PURPOSE to determine if there is any truth to the above claims, and there is none. After 3 years, I just couldn't take the noise any more so I put in a sprung clutch disc, but the flywheel is still solid. None of the trucks so equipped have had any flywheel, clutch, or transmission problems at all. I run straight 30wt non-detergent motor oil in the ZF-5's, and aside from some shifting challenges in cold weather with a cold engine, there are no ill effects.
So what I am gathering here is there is no other functional gain with a dual mass vs a single mass flywheel other than noise reduction? Is that accurate? If that is the case then what is the noise difference experienced when using a sprung clutch disc with a dual mass flywheel as compared to a sprung clutch disc with a single mass flywheel? Considering the cost difference between them it had to be substantial to warrant the kind of feedback to justify the additional spend for Ford I would think.
Also, what is this "lucky MOD conversion" you speak of?
Were any of these test vehicles used to regularly haul or tow heavy loads? As I understand it Ford only put these dual mass flywheels in the diesel trucks which would make me think that the typical use of the vehicle might have played a role.
I have been hiding in T19 land for too long I guess.

