|
I don't think either is as bad as forums make them out to be.
Jamies's explanation of DPF and DMF is pretty much correct. There are two parts to the DMF flywheel connected by springs. The springs allow some relative movement between the engine side and the gearbox side which smoothen out the torque spikes.
Some people think this is a Heath Robinson affair: look at a conventional clutch assembly. The torsion springs dampen out torque spikes while the friction plate and pressure plate are being slipped. The only difference is that a DMF does this job when the clutch is locked.
Won't fatigue lead to inevitable failure?
Valve springs last billions of cycles without a problem, so why should DMF springs be any different? The problems with DMF are basically due to overloading of the the DMF. If the correct DMF is chosen for the application, the DMF won't be any more of a problem than all the other spring components you've never heard of because they rarely fail. Unfortunately, some manufacturers managed to goof up DMF selection and this has smeared their reputation.
In answer to your original question: you probably won't recoup your outlay in fuel savings alone, but I often think that these questions are rhetorical. Some people prefer diesel engine characteristics, some don't.
What I would say is this: If you think a DMF is 'complicated', then look at the continuously variable valve timing and lift contraptions found in modern petrols. Both spark ignition and compression engines have become much more complex and potentially expensive than their older counterparts.
|
