Freelander 1 DMF or SMF....That, is the Question

Okay folks,

Going to throw a big stone in the pond here....TD4 dual mass flywheel and possible looming clutch replacement......

Anyone got any thoughts on doing a single mass flywheel conversion??

Was thinking of a DMF replacement at the same time as the clutch job....but noticed a 'conversion kit' for sale on Bearmach's website. Been assured (through their web chat messenger thing) that it will not damage associated components etc.

Whats the general consensus...I am open to all suggestions...although my wallet is still firmly shut at the moment...

N.B. I have watched a LuK video which is basically 'badly dubbed Porn' on the subject and they obviously 'pooh, poohed' the idea completely...

Cheers in Advance..

I can't see a problem with the SMF providing it doesn't cause an existing design failing to turn into a mechanical failure.

This is where it gets interesting.

There is some evidence that the M47R crank is weaker than it should be. This has resulted in failure at a the big end journal.
Now a DMF is designed to reduce torsional vibrations of the crank, in the same way as the crank damper on the nose of the crank does.

So if you want to reduce the chance of crank failure, then retain the DMF.

I personally would fit the DMF, simply because it's cheaper to reduce the chance of crank failure, than to fix it "should" it fail.

If you're not planning on keeping the vehicle for very long, then save a few £ on the SMF.

Might as well post the 'Badly Dubbed Porn'..for all to see..

Viewer discretion advised....

MollyNomad said:

Okay folks,

Going to throw a big stone in the pond here....TD4 dual mass flywheel and possible looming clutch replacement......

Anyone got any thoughts on doing a single mass flywheel conversion??

Was thinking of a DMF replacement at the same time as the clutch job....but noticed a 'conversion kit' for sale on Bearmach's website. Been assured (through their web chat messenger thing) that it will not damage associated components etc.

Whats the general consensus...I am open to all suggestions...although my wallet is still firmly shut at the moment...

N.B. I have watched a LuK video which is basically 'badly dubbed Porn' on the subject and they obviously 'pooh, poohed' the idea completely...

Cheers in Advance..

Click to expand...

If you really want to cheap out then don't replace the flywheel at all. Wait until the gearbox is off and check it for excess play and if you think it's OK then keep it.
Depends a lot on the mileage on the car of course.

Alibro said:

If you really want to cheap out then don't replace the flywheel at all. Wait until the gearbox is off and check it for excess play and if you think it's OK then keep it.
Depends a lot on the mileage on the car of course.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ali

Have seen a couple of videos about how to do a basic check of DMF condition and was thinking the same. 'Our' TD4 has done 122,000 miles. Regards changing it the question/argument was more for if there was a 'Landyzone 'hack' (like servicing a VCU for instance B-), or if 'Zoners' were in one camp or the other. As mentioned, Bearmach sell a single mass flywheel kit (that is actually more expensive than the DMF ones online) and I asked them through their web chat service if there were any inherent risks in swapping out one for the other. 'None whatsoever' was the reply (obviously as they are selling the chuffing things/which are 'Out of Stock') but this goes against the 'badly dubbed porn' advice from LuK and I would guess the manufacturers too. As LuK build gearbox parts for ALL types of gearbox then I would tend to believe their angle...(not just cos they are 'Zee Germans') BUT I know that this place has more than a few 'closet engineers' who have real world experience in these things..........having looked at your VCU rebuild.....I am kind of tempted to have a go myself.....'Whats the worst that can happen'?(FSSST...Opens can of Doctor Pepper)

Even though it’s as hard to get to as the clutch and slave, I wouldn’t replace the DMF as a matter of course just because you’re in there. It’s such an expensive item. I didn’t renew the DMF on my old Td4 during clutch change, and it’s still going strong - 204,000 miles at last count. It’s rare to hear of Td4 DMF failures, at least on here.

I just checked the thing for play in all directions, and for grease loss and damage to the friction surface, ‘deglazed’ it and buttoned everything back up.

As for SMF, I guess the powertrain was designed as a unit with the DMF, so there must be a reason it’s there. Unless you have a better engineering reason than, ‘it’s slightly cheaper’, I would go for standard parts.

MollyNomad said:

Our' TD4 has done 122,000 miles.

Click to expand...

The DMF has a much longer life than your vehicles current miles.

guineafowl21 said:

As for SMF, I guess the powertrain was designed as a unit with the DMF, so there must be a reason it’s there. Unless you have a better engineering reason than, ‘it’s slightly cheaper’, I would go for standard parts.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

The only time a DMF is not fitted by a manufacturer, is when the engine is expected to by lugged below idle speed. Running DMFs at slow speeds can literally rattle the thing to death. The Ford Puma engine when fitted to a Transit has a DMF. When the same engine is fitted to the Defender, there's no DMF fitted. This is done to allow the engine to be run below idle speed, while the anti-stall program is in operation.
Running a DMF at 500 RPM would shake it to bits in no time at all.

On the whole a manufacturer will only install an item, especially an expensive item like a DMF if it's needed. So undoing that by cheaping out and fitting a SMF, is asking for long term trouble.

guineafowl21 said:

Even though it’s as hard to get to as the clutch and slave, I wouldn’t replace the DMF as a matter of course just because you’re in there. It’s such an expensive item. I didn’t renew the DMF on my old Td4 during clutch change, and it’s still going strong - 204,000 miles at last count. It’s rare to hear of Td4 DMF failures, at least on here.

I just checked the thing for play in all directions, and for grease loss and damage to the friction surface, ‘deglazed’ it and buttoned everything back up.

As for SMF, I guess the powertrain was designed as a unit with the DMF, so there must be a reason it’s there. Unless you have a better engineering reason than, ‘it’s slightly cheaper’, I would go for standard parts.

Click to expand...

Excellent, many thanks for the advice..

Nodge68 said:

The DMF has a much longer life than your vehicles current miles.



Agreed.

The only time a DMF is not fitted by a manufacturer, is when the engine is expected to by lugged below idle speed. Running DMFs at slow speeds can literally rattle the thing to death. The Ford Puma engine when fitted to a Transit has a DMF. When the same engine is fitted to the Defender, there's no DMF fitted. This is done to allow the engine to be run below idle speed, while the anti-stall program is in operation.
Running a DMF at 500 RPM would shake it to bits in no time at all.

On the whole a manufacturer will only install an item, especially an expensive item like a DMF if it's needed. So undoing that by cheaping out and fitting a SMF, is asking for long term trouble.

Click to expand...

Thats good news to hear....so it's not quite 'run in' then...?

Yep, it's beginning to sound like 'badly dubbed porn' which is no bad thing. Cheers, Nodge...interesting ditty about the Transit...thought 'Puma' was a weird name for LandRover to choose for an engine....'Duck Billed Platypus' would be LandRover name...

MollyNomad said:

Puma' was a weird name for landcover to choose for an engine....

Click to expand...

LR didn't choose it, Ford did.

MollyNomad said:

'Duck Billed Platypus' would be LandRover name...

Click to expand...

Lol

guineafowl21 said:

Even though it’s as hard to get to as the clutch and slave, I wouldn’t replace the DMF as a matter of course just because you’re in there. It’s such an expensive item. I didn’t renew the DMF on my old Td4 during clutch change, and it’s still going strong - 204,000 miles at last count. It’s rare to hear of Td4 DMF failures, at least on here.

I just checked the thing for play in all directions, and for grease loss and damage to the friction surface, ‘deglazed’ it and buttoned everything back up.

As for SMF, I guess the powertrain was designed as a unit with the DMF, so there must be a reason it’s there. Unless you have a better engineering reason than, ‘it’s slightly cheaper’, I would go for standard parts.

Click to expand...

+1
Pull off the gearbox, check it and if it needs replaced go for a DMF, if it's OK then keep it.

Single mass on a td4 is a very bad idea, you will be looking at a snapped crank in time.

Plenty of examples on owners forums of it.

The crank is cast, not forged making it far far more brittle, and with the dual mass adding significant to the dampening to the crank loads of torque it goes through, your essentially reducing it significantly.

Oh and 38mph and 58mph will become your worst enemy. Have driven two td4 with them in and several 75s. None of these cars on the road in 2018 now, and why, snapped cranks.

Spend the money, it's worth it.

ColinNI said:

The crank is cast, not forged making it far far more brittle, and with the dual mass adding significant to the dampening to the crank loads of torque it goes through, your essentially reducing it significantly.

Click to expand...

The crank being cast iron isn't the necessarily the reason it's breaking. It appears to be simply not manufactured well enough for the job in hand.

In days gone by almost all engine cranks were cast iron, and breakage was rare. Even powerful (for the time anyway) engines didn't suffer crank failure, at least not often.

A cast iron crank engine needs to have large diameter bearing journals. The crank itself needs correct treatment like perfectly formed large radius rolled fillet radii on the journal to web intersections. Cast cranks also need to have a correctly applied heat treatment process. Miss either of these manufacturing processes and crank life is seriously reduced as it simply can't shrug off torsional vibrations that a running engine puts though the crank.

A correctly designed crank doesn't need a DMF to stop if breaking, as that's the job of the pulley damper. The damper pulley is, or should be tuned to damp out the natural resonances of the crank, reducing torsional vibration to a minimum.

However a badly designed, manufactured or under sized crank will break in time, the DMF simply buys it more time before the inevitable failure.

It makes me wonder what the service life of the TD4 auto's crank is, as it doesn't have a DMF to help reduce torsional vibrations, so makes do with just the pulley damper instead.

Nodge68 said:

The crank being cast iron isn't the necessarily the reason it's breaking. It appears to be simply not manufactured well enough for the job in hand.

In days gone by almost all engine cranks were cast iron, and breakage was rare. Even powerful (for the time anyway) engines didn't suffer crank failure, at least not often.

A cast iron crank engine needs to have large bearing journals and perfectly formed large radius rolled fillet radii on the journal to web intersections. Cast cranks also need to have a correctly applied heat treatment process. Miss either of these manufacturing processes and crank life is seriously reduced as it simply can't shrug off torsional vibrations that a running engine puts though the crank.

A correctly designed crank doesn't need a DMF to stop if breaking, as that's the job of the pulley damper. The damper pulley is, or should be tuned to damp out the natural resonances of the crank, reducing torsional vibration to a minimum.

However a badly designed, manufactured or under sized crank will break in time, the DMF simply buys it more time before the inevitable failure.

It makes me wonder what the service life of the TD4 auto's crank is, as it doesn't have a DMF to help reduce torsional vibrations, so makes do with just the pulley damper instead.

Click to expand...

Is the fluid in a torque converter not a form of damper? It would absorb some shock presumably.

GrumpyGel said:

Is the fluid in a torque converter not a form of damper? It would absorb some shock presumably.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Again circa rover 75 seing the converters fail around 170k but weirdly most are dropping off around the 15 year mark now, it's a weekly occurance on the Facebook pages when people think it's just solinoid failure etc and are disappointed afterwards.

Ive done a few torque converter swaps on 75 autos, not a fun job due to weight and spacing, as for lifespan of it I'd say throwing out the standard 110bhp I'd say you would be more likely to need the timing chain done before a crank going if everything else is in ideal condition.

Problem isnt when you up the power on them it's handling the power, Eg heavy resistance or wheel spins etc. Local owner did a nice E46 320d turbo swap using egr for vnt control, custom exhaust to fit etc etc, apparently good for 180 bhp but never saw a chat or on rollers myself. He was spinning wheels at every meet. Again snapped crank.

I do wonder how much millage and overall condition the bottom end was it, that could be a good point of concern going to the future, engines are common now but in 10 years etc etc.

Now my own 75 tourer is on 1/4 million miles, has had box and torque converter changed now also and 2 fluid changes in my ownership.

This is becoming a 'mini' epic thread....great input and very interesting...just as well we don't all drink in the same pub as there would be no birds in that bar...although maybe a few in the 'lounge'??

Many thanks...