|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: sshemi]
#1150338
01/05/12 06:47 AM
01/05/12 06:47 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,291
Kent, Wa
340SHORTY
Truck Nut
|
Truck Nut
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,291
Kent, Wa
|
on a small block car it would be so easy to use a hyd system off a 88 and newer D/W pickup// Readily availability at any parts house...
I am truckless..
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: ThermoQuad]
#1150340
01/05/12 10:37 AM
01/05/12 10:37 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
anybody looked at trying to adapt a Dakota master/slave set-up? go get the whole thing for cheap out of a junk yard. it's a pusher slave where it pushes from the transmission towards the engine, to actuate the clutch fork which pivots on a ball stud on the far side of the clutch.
or you could possibly flip it around so that it pushes from the engine, back towards the transmission, if the fork is mounted on a ball on the "starter" side of the bell housing.
on my big block Dakota with a TKO trans and Lakewood bell though, I originally used a tilton Hyd. bearing, which was a POS, leaked all over the place and their fitings were a JOKE! I went and got REAL banjo fittings to make it work, but then the thing was too big to fit through the bore in the bell for the transmission bearing retainer, forcing me to assemble the unit with the trans bolted to the bell, and off of the engine. pain in the butt!
that bearing ultimately had another failure where the actual bearing and faceplate popped off the hyd. piston.
went with a Powertrain Technologies Inc. Hyd. TO bearing. MUCH better design, came with shims to stack up under the bearing to space it off the transmission, and it just "floated" there between the trans and clutch. it used a long shoulder bolt to prevent it from spinning.
both units were about $250-300, which is why, in hind sight, I wish I had tried to adapt the stock master/slave set-up to work.
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1150344
01/05/12 03:12 PM
01/05/12 03:12 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 181
Washington State
70chall440
member
|
member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 181
Washington State
|
Quote:
anybody looked at trying to adapt a Dakota master/slave set-up? go get the whole thing for cheap out of a junk yard. it's a pusher slave where it pushes from the transmission towards the engine, to actuate the clutch fork which pivots on a ball stud on the far side of the clutch.
or you could possibly flip it around so that it pushes from the engine, back towards the transmission, if the fork is mounted on a ball on the "starter" side of the bell housing.
on my big block Dakota with a TKO trans and Lakewood bell though, I originally used a tilton Hyd. bearing, which was a POS, leaked all over the place and their fitings were a JOKE! I went and got REAL banjo fittings to make it work, but then the thing was too big to fit through the bore in the bell for the transmission bearing retainer, forcing me to assemble the unit with the trans bolted to the bell, and off of the engine. pain in the butt!
that bearing ultimately had another failure where the actual bearing and faceplate popped off the hyd. piston.
went with a Powertrain Technologies Inc. Hyd. TO bearing. MUCH better design, came with shims to stack up under the bearing to space it off the transmission, and it just "floated" there between the trans and clutch. it used a long shoulder bolt to prevent it from spinning.
both units were about $250-300, which is why, in hind sight, I wish I had tried to adapt the stock master/slave set-up to work.
The problem is space, on a conventional SB Mopar, the starter boss on the bell housing extends outward to a point that the slave cylinder is sticking out a considerable distance thus making the approach angle to the pivot arm (TB arm) somewhat steep. Also, because it is sticking out from the trans, exhaust is an issue. This is why I am waiting on my headers to mock it back up. That said, I am now pretty confident that the best way to do this is with a puller slave cylinder. You have to make a bracket (Like Chucks and Brewers have) to attach the anchor point of the slave to. This mounts to the trans side cover bolts. this allows the cylinder to get out of the way of the exhaust and tucks it nicely into the area right behind the pivot arm and trans. Chucks and Brewers have nice kits that do all of this, if you don’t want to make anything, I would recommend just buying their kit (approx $400). However, if you want to and are able to make brackets and such, you can do the exact same thing for half the price. Chucks takes a different approach to mounting the MC, they mount theirs to the clutch pedal directly, and thus the MC is under the dash. This isn’t a problem as you can remote the reservoir; however I would prefer to have it in the engine compartment where I can see/work on it (personal preference). The biggest manufacturing issue here is the bracket that bolts to the trans as an anchor point for the slave.
Last edited by 70chall440; 01/05/12 03:15 PM.
01 Viper GTS ACR
10 Challenger RT PCP 6spd
70 Challenger 440 6 pac
73 Cuda 416 Road Racer
70 Hemi Roadrunner
01 Ram 4x4 / 98 Ram 3500
91 Stealth RT
05 Durango Hemi
09 Caliber / 99 Dakota 4x4 / 52 Dodge B3B
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: RTSE4ME]
#1150348
01/06/12 11:21 AM
01/06/12 11:21 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,336
South-Central (Sebring), FL
Commando1
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,336
South-Central (Sebring), FL
|
Quote:
What would be nice is a bellhousing with slave cylinder mount. Keisler and Brewers have new bellhousings cast. I wouldn't think it would be too hard design a bell with a slave mount.
Make your bracket for a stock bell housing. Easy enough...
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: gtx6970]
#1150353
01/07/12 02:25 AM
01/07/12 02:25 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 181
Washington State
70chall440
member
|
member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 181
Washington State
|
Oh I am sure there will always be those you like this or that and those that dont. I am not saying one is necessarily better than the other, however talking to some of the custom guys at SEMA, all of those that I talked to were running HYD. I have a HYD in my Viper and 10 Challenger and they work great. I have had a fair number of old school mopars with the stock linkage and while they functioned as intended, with this car I wanted to try something different. This is one of the reasons I chose to go with the slave Cyl. option, if I decide I want to go stock, I can do so w/o removing the trans. The other issue I have/had witht the HYD TB is adjustment and leakage, for both, you have to remove the trans.
01 Viper GTS ACR
10 Challenger RT PCP 6spd
70 Challenger 440 6 pac
73 Cuda 416 Road Racer
70 Hemi Roadrunner
01 Ram 4x4 / 98 Ram 3500
91 Stealth RT
05 Durango Hemi
09 Caliber / 99 Dakota 4x4 / 52 Dodge B3B
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: sshemi]
#1150354
01/07/12 04:09 AM
01/07/12 04:09 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
|
Quote:
to me it doesnt make sence to build something that still takes up space (slave cyl) its not like the clutch will be super easy to pedal just because you go hydraulic.
The friction lost in a stock setup is minimal, and the geometry when properly adjusted is actally thought through by mopar.
Without having limited space and/or super heavy springs in the pressure plate a hyd clutch TO ME is a waste of time.
Newtons law "what you earn in force you loose in distance" applies to hyd too.
Aldough i have been thinking about some hyd/pneumatic booster.
But to me i only have limited space so its not gonna happen in a near future
Don't discount it if you haven't tried it. There's a reason NO modern performance car runs a mechanical clutch linkage. The ONLY reason any manufacturer would put a linkage or cable actuated clutch in a car these days is it's cheaper to produce than a hydraulic clutch.
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: 70chall440]
#1150355
01/07/12 05:37 AM
01/07/12 05:37 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,128
sweden
sshemi
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,128
sweden
|
Quote:
Oh I am sure there will always be those you like this or that and those that dont. I am not saying one is necessarily better than the other, however talking to some of the custom guys at SEMA, all of those that I talked to were running HYD. I have a HYD in my Viper and 10 Challenger and they work great. I have had a fair number of old school mopars with the stock linkage and while they functioned as intended, with this car I wanted to try something different. This is one of the reasons I chose to go with the slave Cyl. option, if I decide I want to go stock, I can do so w/o removing the trans. The other issue I have/had witht the HYD TB is adjustment and leakage, for both, you have to remove the trans.
What do you mean by adj a hyd bearing?
If you install it correct you should never need to adj again
|
|
|
Re: Hydraulic throwout bearing kits
[Re: sshemi]
#1150356
01/07/12 09:52 AM
01/07/12 09:52 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 28
New Jersey
Claw57
member
|
member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 28
New Jersey
|
Hydraulic can also be an alternative for those doing a conversion whose car doesn't have the factory z-bar frame bracket.
Because I like it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
