Clutch damper delete, a good thing...

[johnl]

The damper system is in pretty much every M/T car from that time and onwards to 2000 ish.

I've driven a number of newer automatic cars, but not newer manual cars. I've driven hundreds of manual cars that wouldn't have had a clutch damper, so my only experience of one is likely to be the Accord (unless perhaps my nephews old Civic has one).

It simply delays the clutch response a little to prevent the car from "bouncing" from start, i guess you could say, its a comfort thing.

And therein lies the problem. It takes fine control away from the driver.

People will hardly notice any difference if you remove it and if you do, you will quickly adapt to the new clutch engagement.

I think most people wouldn't really notice. It depends on how the driver uses the clutch and how sensitive to the car they happen to be. I'm sure my wife wouldn't detect any difference, but I find it very noticeable.

Having a stock car does justice for the need of the damper, but once you start increasing your output, the damper system will work against you, creating unnecessary slippage.

I think it's more to do with driving style than power output.

[johnl]

It actually sounds like your damper was screwed up. Which is another reason I have seen for people removing the damper although only a couple times.

It's possible, it was a bit gunky inside, and deleting did eliminate an untoward creaking in the system. I couldn't find any components inside that were obviously moving parts. There was a fat rubber ring that looked more like a seal than something that would compress / decompress...(?).

As I said, an inconsistent pedal and it makes it more difficult to shift smoothly. (For me anyhow, as I said, some people like it some don't and some don't see any difference. Just stating my experience).

It's mysterious how removing an apparent source of inconsistency might introduce an inconsistency. I can't see how it could be so. Not arguing with your experience, just failing to see a mechanism which could create it. Without the damper there is only a direct link from MC to SC, so X action at the MC should equal X action at the SC (multiplied by any ratio created by differences in piston OD). The damper introduces a variable...

[H311RA151N]

JohnL, your description of what the damper does is spot on and a great explanation if you ask me. But as for the drivers skill being the reason it was implemented or the cause of poor operation with the damper removed... I don't know about that. Operation of a system that does not operate as designed isn't proof of being highly skilled. If you did not prefer operating the system as designed then maybe the removal of the clutch damper fits your driving style better. And I'm glad it does. Replacing clutches isn't something one tends to look forward to all that much. Nor is driving while something is bothering you.

Everything else you described can be applied to much more spirited driving than daily driving. All your points I find very valid. You do get a better connection with the clutch with the damper removed. I can "feel more" in my left foot I must say. I currently have around 13,000 miles with the clutch damper removed.

The damper does introduce the variable. And a damn good explanation I might add. I'm going to ponder on this part of our conversation and see what I come up with. As for being harsh, your very detailed explanation in your second to last post explained what I don't care for. Very well I might add.

[owequitit]

Installing the factory hardline was quite easy with the engine and transmission removed. I don't see a need to delete the damper, Honda engineers obviously had a good enough reason to put it there and convinced the accounting department it was a worthwhile cost. Of course my Hondas are all just daily drivers.

Your other squeak is coming from the slave cylinder, where it pushes on the clutch fork. Put some marine grease in there and it should go away.

I've done both. It is an easy job with the engine/tranny out, but it is significantly harder with the engine in the car. Doable, but a much higher level of difficulty.

Still to ensure clearance from everything, plus the fact all the mounting hardware is already there, I always recommend that people put the stock hard line in. It just provides a little extra insurance down the road.

[owequitit]

I've driven a number of newer automatic cars, but not newer manual cars. I've driven hundreds of manual cars that wouldn't have had a clutch damper, so my only experience of one is likely to be the Accord (unless perhaps my nephews old Civic has one).



And therein lies the problem. It takes fine control away from the driver.



I think most people wouldn't really notice. It depends on how the driver uses the clutch and how sensitive to the car they happen to be. I'm sure my wife wouldn't detect any difference, but I find it very noticeable.



I think it's more to do with driving style than power output.

The damper is also there to reduce warranty claims at it reduces the shock on the system during a clutch dump. Primarily though, it is there to make the clutch engagement smoother (just like the multi-stage engine mounts and balance shafts on the CB7). Honda wanted a more refined driving experience.

And if you think that clutch damper is inconvenient, you should try the 8th gen Si which I believe has a damper in addition to the delay valve in the master cylinder. Not only does it really cause a clutch delay, but it is also one of the known causes of the gear grinding with these cars (the delay is so bad, it can be mis-timed with the shift when hurrying). A lot of guys just outright fit a CMC from the 99-00 Civic Si to get rid of the stupid valve. I have contemplated it.

[johnl]

JohnL, your description of what the damper does is spot on and a great explanation if you ask me.

Thanks. I've just edited a few errors, just typos, but should make a couple of statements clearer.

But as for the drivers skill being the reason it was implemented or the cause of poor operation with the damper removed... I don't know about that. Operation of a system that does not operate as designed isn't proof of being highly skilled.

I wouldn't count myself as a particularly "highly skilled" driver, but significantly more skilled than average (the average is worryingly low IMO). I have plenty of racing trophies to attest to some level of competence, but then I've also raced against some properly good drivers, so I know my place in the scheme of things...

If I were more skilled then I'd be able to better drive around the problem most of the time, and to a degree I could, but it was still an irritation that sometimes bit me. It takes some skill to operate a malfunctioning (or just poorly functioning) system control in a manner that allows it to work acceptably well, despite it having a problem or shortcoming. Of course it does depend on the length or shortness of the particular string...

I do think the damper is primarily there to make life just a little easier for the 'lowest common denominator' driver. Just how successfully I don't really know. Come to think about it and looking back, I recall having found the damper action to cause problems even driving around a car park at very low speed, mostly due to the driver (me) trying to compensate for expected clutch slip that sometimes did and sometimes didn't happen, i.e. let the clutch out a tad too fast expecting some slippage that doesn't eventuate, resulting in a lurch or a stalled engine (the light flywheel wouldn't have been helping this either, and probably magnifies any problem along these lines...).

If you did not prefer operating the system as designed then maybe the removal of the clutch damper fits your driving style better. And I'm glad it does. Replacing clutches isn't something one tends to look forward to all that much. Nor is driving while something is bothering you.

Agreed, more or less.

Everything else you described can be applied to much more spirited driving than daily driving. All your points I find very valid.

See my comment re driving at low speed in the parking lot (etc.). The caveat here is that my damper may have been operating not quite as designed, maybe a bit sticky in some way(?). Whatever, it's significantly better now with the damn thing ripped out, just like other 'normal' clutches not fitted with one, significantly more controllable.

You do get a better connection with the clutch with the damper removed. I can "feel more" in my left foot I must say.

That completely agrees with my experience with this.

[johnl]

The damper is also there to reduce warranty claims at it reduces the shock on the system during a clutch dump. Primarily though, it is there to make the clutch engagement smoother (just like the multi-stage engine mounts and balance shafts on the CB7). Honda wanted a more refined driving experience.

I can see the NVH engineers ('refinement' being within their perview) pitching the damper to the accountants as a potential warranty claim limiting exercise, but I don't really buy it. It's not that hard to design the necessary toughness into the drivetrain, plenty of other cars have had no issues sans clutch damper. I'd be surprised if the chassis dynamics and drivetrain engineers really like it all that much, but then the NVH guys are possibly higher up the chain (closer to the marketing department?) than the drivetrain engineers...

And if you think that clutch damper is inconvenient, you should try the 8th gen Si which I believe has a damper in addition to the delay valve in the master cylinder. Not only does it really cause a clutch delay, but it is also one of the known causes of the gear grinding with these cars (the delay is so bad, it can be mis-timed with the shift when hurrying). A lot of guys just outright fit a CMC from the 99-00 Civic Si to get rid of the stupid valve. I have contemplated it.

I'm sure I've had incidences of gear grinding that are attributable to mis-timed shifts caused by the clutch damper delay (or at least my subconscious attempt to allow for a delay that may not have occurred as usual). It couldn't possibly have been any clumsiness or lack of skill on my part...

[djcaz_aom]

Wow, you guys covered alot. Very informative post. The only thing I can add is the more hard line you have, the better.

[johnl]

The only thing I can add is the more hard line you have, the better.

In theory yes. The more 'soft line' there is the more the system pressure will expand the line, resulting in a degree of 'sponginess' in the pedal. In practice I doubt it would be all that significant, the pressures are highish, but an order of magnitude less than the pressures seen in a braking system. Add up all the soft hose length in a braking system, it's quite a lot...

----------

I have to say that the more I drive the car without the damper the more I like it. Gear shifts are now not only faster but smoother as well. It's easier to time / synchronise the shift and clutch control actions. I now realise that previously I had been tending to pull the lever (to deselect) while the clutch was still not quite yet fully disengaged, resulting in a bit of 'sticktion' in the shift action. Now the lever pulls out of gear more cleanly and 'freely', making it feel nicer to use. The shift action is now noticeably more 'snicky' than before, and I'm enjoying gear changes in this car in a way I never have before...

[GhostAccord]

That's a +1 for using braided hose when you need a flex line.

[Accrdwgnguy]

I do recall the owner's manual stating that you need to shift slowly, otherwise you will grind gears. Which does happen.

My truck uses a hydraulic clutch system as well, no damper in there. I can shift that clunky truck transmission fairly quickly without any drama. So there is some merit to this mod.

[johnl]

I do recall the owner's manual stating that you need to shift slowly, otherwise you will grind gears. Which does happen.

I find the change into third gear the most likely to 'grind' with any ham-fisted shift. The recommendation to shift slowly may be related to the damper, but if so then the damper is causing a problem, maybe not for the 'average' driver, but more so for not so average drivers (i.e. drivers that like to extract more of the performance the car is capable of).

Some drivers have a 'loosely' timed habit of shifting gears, slow and deliberative. Some drivers have a 'tightly' timed habit of shifting gears, there is less time between the various actions, so if anything is mistimed there is more scope to cause a less than nice shift.

A light flywheel will cause problems when shifting slowly, the rpm will drop too far while shifting to the next highest gear, resulting in a lurch when the clutch pedal is released. I have a light flywheel, and also have the IACV blanked off (to eliminate the rpm 'hang' when lifting off the throttle), both of which cause a faster than stock rpm drop off throttle. This necessitates a faster shift action so the clutch pedal can be released before the rpm drop too low.

The lack of a damper is helping in all facets of the gear shift, shifting up, shifting down, rev matching, heel / toe, feel, smoothness, accuracy. At least it is for me, driving this car.

So there is some merit to this mod.

Yes there is, for some drivers, but I think others won't notice much difference.

My enthusiasm for this mod is now that of the newly zealous convert. I'm quite annoyed I've been driving the car for so long with this stupid counter-productive thing fitted...

[owequitit]

I can see the NVH engineers ('refinement' being within their perview) pitching the damper to the accountants as a potential warranty claim limiting exercise, but I don't really buy it. It's not that hard to design the necessary toughness into the drivetrain, plenty of other cars have had no issues sans clutch damper. I'd be surprised if the chassis dynamics and drivetrain engineers really like it all that much, but then the NVH guys are possibly higher up the chain (closer to the marketing department?) than the drivetrain engineers...



I'm sure I've had incidences of gear grinding that are attributable to mis-timed shifts caused by the clutch damper delay (or at least my subconscious attempt to allow for a delay that may not have occurred as usual). It couldn't possibly have been any clumsiness or lack of skill on my part...

If you consider scale though, it makes sense. Consider that they were pumping nearly a million of these car out every year worldwide, and savings of $5-10 a car through lighter components is significant savings. Not to mention down the road when the cars are still under warranty but have been beat on.

However, I do agree that the primary reason was simply to ensure less kick back in the drive line from poor clutch technique.

[johnl]

If you consider scale though, it makes sense. Consider that they were pumping nearly a million of these car out every year worldwide, and savings of $5-10 a car through lighter components is significant savings. Not to mention down the road when the cars are still under warranty but have been beat on.

Yes, but, how tough are the drivetrain components in reality? How much of a performance increase are they typically able to cope with? Usually quite a significant amount before issues arise. The drivetrain is pretty robust, it's going to cope with far more abuse than will be dealt out by somewhat less than expert clutch usage.

I am having trouble seeing that the damper would reduce the 'beating' given out to somewhat abused drivetrain components enough to make a significant difference. The most likely warranty claim that might be caused by poor clutch technique is going to be pre-maturely worn out clutches. I reckon it's going to be hard to claim on that, the finger will be pointed back at the driver...

I can't see the drivetrain engineers thinking 'we can make the everything 5% lighter or use cheaper metal if we add a clutch damper'. They'll make it as strong as it needs to be according to calculation and then add a substantial safety margin on top of that, which is why most cars cope with often substantial power increases with no problems (at least with relatively modern cars...). I'm pretty sure the damper is an afterthought added down the line after the drivetrain has already been developed, just so the NVH guys can say they did something...