ned
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 09:42 AM |
|
|
which clutch mechanism?
I'm ready to order my bellhousing for my vauxhall -> ford type 9. Supplier etc is sorted.
Problem is I can't decide whether to go for a cable or hydraulic clutch.
The cable type will be cheaper, but i'm worried the fork may foul the tranny tunnel and so make the engine need to be mounted quite far
forward.
If I use a hydraulic clutch I don't have to worry about the release fork and can move the engine & gearbox further back which should give a
better centre of gravity and no need to extend the gearstick so much.
I'll be using the ST/luego type pedal box, so an easily accomodate either mechanism.
Mine is a book chassis, engine bay, footwell + tranny tunnel wise!
thanks,
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
|
|
timf
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
what type of hydralic slave are you thinking of using.
the concentric ones that go in place of the 1st motion shaft cover.
or the ram type one that goes in place of the clutch cable.
the ram one wont give you any advantage over the cable in a space issue.
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 10:34 AM |
|
|
i'm not sure i understand the difference in the two types you mentioned! anyone got a pic or diagram of how the two different types of hydraulic
clutch timf mentions works?
or should i just go with a cable one?!
thanks,
Ned.
ps to illustrate my point about how far back/where the engine has to go with a cable/fork setup here is a pic of northy's who's using the
same engine + bellhousing...
[Edited on 17/9/03 by ned]
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
timf
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 11:18 AM |
|
|
hed the ram type one
pushes/pulls the existing clutch fork
hence there is no gain in space
the concentic one liiks like a donut and fits onto a special 1st motion shaft cover ( the thing that has the splines on it out of the front of the
gearbox) and presses the release bearing directly against the cluth hence the fork isn't needed
look in the burton cataloge for the concentric one and in the rally design catalogue for a rod type one
[Edited on 17/9/03 by timf]
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
i was thinking of the type that goes round the input shaft and acts like a ram directly against a release bearing.
i think i was confused when you said concentric!....
Anyone any idea how much room I'd gain? I appreciate the bellhousing won't go that far into the tunnel due to it's width (conical
shape) and the starter motor position.
cheers,
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
timf
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 11:24 AM |
|
|
if you dont need the fork you gain that much room on that side.
|
|
|
Ian Pearson
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 03:32 PM |
|
|
I have a standard chassis apart from the tunnel which I widened like an inverted V.
It has left me plenty of room for the pedals and my feet. My gearbox is about 4 inches firther back than the photo you have posted and so I've
no need for an extension to the gear stick.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 03:35 PM |
|
|
Ned,
Looking at Northy's picture you could still get the engine back about 3" further if you wanted (ie. nearly to the back of the clutch
fork).
Do you really want it any further back? Your feet might be getting a little toasty if you do!
You'd save a lot of hassle/expense (assuming you don't already have a m/c and ram that is!) with a cable where the only hassle is routing
it!
Also, how much is the bell housing just out of interest?
James
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 03:51 PM |
|
|
the bell housing is paid for, decided to get it without a clutch fork or slave cylinder for the mo, then at least i can size it all up and see how it
fits.
i don't know how wide it gets how quickly (as in conical shapoedness) so might not even fit as far as the clutch fork, will need to test and
see. At least then i can get the engine positioning and hopefully mounts sorted.
cable is favourite for cost reasons though obviously...
not too bothered about heat, don't think this'll be an issue (imho)
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ned
not too bothered about heat, don't think this'll be an issue (imho)
Ned.
Hmmm, well I hope you're right as I've put my engine way closer to the bulk head than Northys and now I'm really worried it'll
get too hot down there.
Oh well, we'll see!
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
type 907
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 05:14 PM |
|
|
Hi
Thought you might like a pic of a concentric slave.
This is a mondeo unit in a getrag box.
Hope this helps you decide.
 
Rescued attachment clutch 003s.jpg
Too much is just enough
|
|
|
Northy
|
| posted on 17/9/03 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
Do you guys think my engine should be further back? Why?
Cheers
Graham
Website under construction. Help greatfully received as I don't really know what I'm doing! 
"If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?"
Built 2L 8 Valve Vx Powered Avon
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 18/9/03 at 08:45 AM |
|
|
Northy,
It's personal taste, though IMHO the further back the engine is, the better the centre of gravity and balance of the car will be.
Don't know if this'll make a disernable difference when driving the car, just the way i want to do it, thats all.
type907,
thanks for the image, if i go hydraulic thats the sort of setup/type i'd want!
Ned.
[Edited on 18/9/03 by ned]
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 18/9/03 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Northy
Do you guys think my engine should be further back? Why?
Cheers
No, not particularly. I've put mine closer and I think it was a bad idea as it'll get too warm!
I mainly did it just to save me building a gear-lever extension!
James
|
|
|
