Problem indeed...
I would still have to say however that the G was/is built on the greatest idea that was ever dreamed up in sports car land... a "true" 2+2 coupe'. Yeah yeah... the rear seat isn't exactly built for adults, (at least not male adults), but the wife has been known to ride back there with my 22yo daughter. Actually thats why I bought the G over the Z, (and taking a HUGE weight hit) was it was/is a 2+2 coupe'. (Coupe-A if we're all in Europe) And yes, I did also choose the G over the Z because of fit and finish. (really like the cashmere color leather)

Go to anywhere in Europe where a BIG engine is a 2.0 4 banger and you'll happily agree that a 300+HP V6 is indeed a performance coupe. Do remember that it's rear wheel drive, not horrible torque steer pulling the front from side to side. Moreover, look at the great era of muscle cars throughout the 60's and early 70's that are bringing $100,000.00 without people even blinking then remember...., many, many, many, of them with V8 small blocks were putting out what the current 3.7 liter in stock form does even now.

So yes, the G does represent a better built, and much better driving automobile than the 2+2 days of old. (Of course all similar manufacturers fall into the same category as well. Such as BMW 3 Series, Nissan 370, Mazda RX8, Hyundai Genesis, Audi A4, Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, etc....) [Certainly not in order of build quality, speed, etc.)

Please note that I never said these are "super cars" and never will. Today, just as always, if someone has more money than sense they can build out these lil' cars to well over 500HP at the wheels, and take on whatever "super car" they feel like. Me... I'd just buy a better car.

Ahhhh... the "dual-mass" flywheel. That's been an issue with more vehicles than you can imagine. Tons of work trucks have been using them for decades now. You will not find a Heavy Duty, Super Duty or similar truck out there that doesn't have them. Imagine the new GM diesel V8 with 400HP and SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE pounds of torque with a grabby clutch and a solid fly wheel? Having owned a couple dozen tow trucks, Fords then stepping up to Caterpillar powered GMC's (C 6500 Series) they all had "dual-mass" flywheels. I spent all day pulling gross vehicle weights of 25,000 ~ 55,000 LBS and still have my fillings and never had clutch problems, ever.

The biggest thing, as you've already noticed... uh... smoother. Doesn't make it worse unless you're wanting to snap the rear loose or spend every weekend doing 'track-days' and lots of heel~toe work. Providing "dual-mass" is exactly what's needed for high torque applications that can shake your fillings loose. (Added to single spring clutch disc's it can seem a bit sedate I do agree. Stiffen up that disc with dual HD springs and things get better in a hurry.)

I totally agree that you can stick a lightweight solid flywheel in this generation of vehicles and get a 'snappy' throttle response. No questions asked. But you will lose a bit of torque when you lighten the mass. This you'll feel from the first time you pull your foot of the clutch pedal.
It's more of a give up one thing for another approach. I can live with the flywheel and it not be sayyyyy, 'snappy' when blipping here and there. Just give me a quick but more importantly, powerful pressure plate and clutch disc and I'll be a happy camper.

 

Now THAT is a present indeed!!

Seems like a great solution for a problem that we all agree shouldn't exist in the first place. Best fix under a hundred bucks out there. Great catch big guy!

 

Sounds like it's a ball-check valve built into the end of the line. The bad part is we have to do it in the first place. The good part is that we CAN do it without having the dealer involved. Then the GREAT part is that it's under a hundred bucks!

 

Am I missing something here or isn't this the same as all the other SS lines meant to replace the rubber hose from the hard line to the slave or does it replace a different line, I'm confused?