Z-Bar is correct and can't be installed backwards. Arm is bent like it is because of bellhousing and the other arm on frame side is straight. I checked all of this yesterday to confirm. The repop that I have is hardened and thicker material so not so easy to bend. Not impossible though.

Maybe the one that you posted is easier to bend because it appears to be thinner material and it looks more like the one Barry posted only his is slightly bent.

I was working with Chet this week end on this and put my car up and sent him pictures, my adjuster is more straight than his and I originally claimed it to be original as far as I know, I was thinking his looked more like my A bodies but after looking at a new repop for an A I have it was straight and due to the fact of having a lot of parts and my AAR came in boxes I am no longer convinced that it has to be the original. After that realization we went to a few sources of what is believed to be known original unmolested cars, namely the 171 mile TA from Barry's DVD and a 23k mile thoguht to be unmolested AAR in New York that I have a file on. Both those cars have adjusters that match mine. In addition, the NOS adjuster Chet just bought is like mine, it is correct by part number. I'm a firm believer in know what you believe and more importantly know WHY you believe what you believe. The best source of reference outside of your own car is known originals. As many of you have, I have installed enough repop parts to know some are just plan wrong, I believe that may be the case here.

Chet, you can add my pictures to the thread if you would like and if Barry is ok with it we can add the one from the 171 mile TA. If the owner of the 23k car runs across this we can add that picture with his blessing as well.

As with Chet, I'd just like to know the "truth".

Thanks Kevin. I couldn’t have said it better. I’ve attached photos of the adjuster on your car that you sent me.

Food for thought.
Look at the location of the Z bar bracket between these 2 pics.
One is outside the lower block tab, the other is inside the face of said lower block tab

Yet both appear to be pretty straight on shot and not angled so to speak

Hmm didn’t noticed that. We both have the same torque shafts according to the arm to end measurement and some numbers stamped on them believed to be original.

Ball studs are correct as well. If they weren’t and torque shaft wasn’t positioned correctly, I believe clutch pedal rod would be angled.

Thanks

I'm gonna go with it's an optical illusion for the reason stated by Chet.

Chet, I believe you have a picture of another car that has an adjuster like yours yet the angle of the Z bar to the fork seems drastically different making his adjuster line up fine. Is it possible that there are 2 different Z bars? We know ours are the same but we don't know about the other car. That picture would be a good add to the thread as well if the owner is ok with it.

A low mileage unmolested survivor AAR. Adjuster is hard to see but I see it as being straight. Owner gave me permission to post this.

Restored TA by a reputable person which happens to be the owner that gave me permission to use this photo. Not sure how it worked for him but it does.

STOP!!!!
What a bunch of cave men, just like the other crappy advice most get these days

The real problem is the z bar bearing retainer is not in the center groove of the bearing as it should

Ask sogtx about that one....

ok back to my cave

“What a bunch of cavemen” that’s pretty funny.

I’ll have to check that. If retainer ends are on the outermost edge of the bearing the zbar would be pushed more toward the bell housing causing the arm to be mis-aligned enough to where the bent rod wouldn’t work. Am I understanding what you mean?

You may be on to something. I’ll have to check tomorrow.

If you are referring to where the clip that locks into the groove of the out board bushing we covered that on day one as Chet mentioned although we haven't discussed it here. Frankly, we looked at a lot that we haven't discussed. For the most part we have verified that his and my car are assembled correctly, not simply because we did it but because we double checked.

If you are referring to something else please clarify so we can chase it. We have his and mine that we can check any question.

Our main question is what is the correct adjuster for these cars, everything I can put factory faith in is straight but then the question comes up why are the repops wrong?

And I prefer Neanderthal!

I use to buy the longer A motor clutch rod, not sure if it was for E bodies only or for all three body styles or not, to use in my 1970 Baracuda with a 1968 hemi motor with the stock bell housing and 170 tooth flywheel. The original rod, that car was a 383 4 speed car originally, was to short to stick through the clucth fork, the A motor rods was long enough to go all the way through it which made it stay in the fork better when speed shifting the car when I raced it later in NHRA stock class, I remember fighting those stock retaining clips to stay on until I figure out which way the opening needed to be facing on the Z bar to hold on
I'm sure the rod you have is exactly like the stock A motor rod I use to buy and use on all my stick shift cars

Are we safe to assume they were from Chrysler not a repop at that time? Any chance you remember the part number of have any record of it? The reason I ask is Chet ordered an NOS piece and it would be nice to know if it's the same number you used, it appears to be much straighter than the repops.

Any chance you remember how much of an angle the adjusters you used had?

Thanks for the input.

I was able to double check the retainer and it’s right where it should be, in the center of the bearing.

If my frame side ball stud is to long, a shorter one would would allow zbar to move closer to frame which is the direction it needs to go. This is not the case according to Brewers.

Also, if holes for retainer in zbar were drilled in a different location towards the bell housing, this would possibly allow you to slide zbar over toward frame then lock it in.

I’ve purchased according to the parts book, the correct part and awaiting arrival. Will post photo when installed.

Caveman

according to the ebay listing the 3467235 is the curved rod https://www.ebay.com/p/1770468843
and the straight rod is 2534240 https://www.ebay.com/itm/MOPAR-NOS-2534240-Clutch-Linkage-Fork-Release-Rod-/312471848389
now hoffmans list the opposite http://www.hoffmanswinnerscircle.com/06_clutch.htm

Yes I saw that listing as well and saw what Hoffman’s offered. Confusing to say the least.

All set to go now. Thanks for the help.

Almost like it was made for it, oh wait according to the parts book it WAS!

So is it safe to say the repop are just wrong or do we still believe them to be correct in some cases?

Trade you a bag of rocks for the old piece? I have a decent hammer and had a Helluva Mopar Dad that showed me how to use it when I was 5.

Apparently, you did not.

A Fool and his money was parted.

Now, which one of you moparts Dummies have fuel to throw out and a full set of tires with one crack to throw away?