Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Newnan, Georgia
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    The "press plate levers"...I assume you mean the "s" shaped springs? They seem to work well. I test fit and moved the throwout fork through full motion and it all seemed to do what they are supposed to.
    Norm

    '74 CJ5 "Atomic Orange", D30&44 @ 3.73
    360 / T-18a / twin stick Dana 20 / front Aussie locker

    '67 Steven M416

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Kings Beach, Ca. Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    It's kinda hard to tell, but it looks like all three of those bearings are the same length. The collar that presses into the bearings is available in different lengths, or I should say the TO bearings are available in different lengths as a set. The bearings are all the same, but the collars are different. As I stated earlier, if you don't have forward angle on the clutch fork you won't get the clutch to release. If you can't find a longer bearing set get an adjustable pivot stud from Novak Conversions and that should work for you. I've been in exactly the position you are in when I put my T18 in with a hydraulic clutch.
    '67 CJ5 w/'73 frnt clip, 94 1/2" wheelbase, D44 FF, Warn Drive Flanges, 30 Spline, OX locker, D30, ARB Locker, 4 Wheel Discs, Ford T-18, 5.38 gears, 13.50 x 35 Krawlers, SOA w/ YJ springs, Powerwelder, OBA, FI V6 Dauntless, Warn M8000 winch, PS, HEI, Chevy High Steer Knuckles, Fully Boxed M38A1 Frame, Hydro Clutch, Tera Low 18 T-case

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Newnan, Georgia
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    On the bearings...they are all nearly identical, the biggest difference is in the height of the collar. The 3 finger variety is taller so it can extend further down the shaft without coming off. The face of the TO bearing is slightly different as well, but again the 3 finger variety match very closely if not identical.

    The distance from where the fork sits and the face of the bearing that makes contact with the clutch springs is the same among all 3.

    I agree that an adjustable fork pivot point would effect how well the TO bearing engages the clutch. The AMC bellhousing that I am using does not use the threaded pivot, it's just a ball on a pedestal. Did you have to drill and tap the bellhousing to install your adjustable pivot?
    Last edited by nwedgar; 08-08-2011 at 10:27 AM.
    Norm

    '74 CJ5 "Atomic Orange", D30&44 @ 3.73
    360 / T-18a / twin stick Dana 20 / front Aussie locker

    '67 Steven M416

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Kings Beach, Ca. Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    On mine the pivot screws into the bellhousing. Sounds like that won't work on your bellhousing. Check this link:
    http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge/clutches_etc.htm A little over half way down on the page is a chart of throwout bearings with their lengths and PN's. Also the article on the page explains pretty well clutch setup. Your best bet might be to call Novak and talk to one of their tech people. They are very helpful and very knowledgeable about Jeep conversions. I know what a PITA it is to keep putting in and taking out one of these pigs trying to get the clutch to work. In one day I had mine in 5 times. Even with a real tranny jack it wasn't all that much fun.
    '67 CJ5 w/'73 frnt clip, 94 1/2" wheelbase, D44 FF, Warn Drive Flanges, 30 Spline, OX locker, D30, ARB Locker, 4 Wheel Discs, Ford T-18, 5.38 gears, 13.50 x 35 Krawlers, SOA w/ YJ springs, Powerwelder, OBA, FI V6 Dauntless, Warn M8000 winch, PS, HEI, Chevy High Steer Knuckles, Fully Boxed M38A1 Frame, Hydro Clutch, Tera Low 18 T-case

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Newnan, Georgia
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    This is very frustrating. What I thought was going to be a relatively easy swap/upgrade is turning into a nightmare.

    I trimmed out a wedge from the clutch pedal arm so that the arm and pedal angle would allow it to go all the way to the floor. It worked a little. I could press the pedal all the way to the floor and the Jeep would move, but the clutch would not release completely yet.

    I'll give Novak a call and see what solutions they can offer.
    Norm

    '74 CJ5 "Atomic Orange", D30&44 @ 3.73
    360 / T-18a / twin stick Dana 20 / front Aussie locker

    '67 Steven M416

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colton,Calif
    Posts
    282

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    Is it a match set? Did buy all from the same dealer, you stated the first throw bearing was for a difference plate. The friction dish can be too thick to release. I had one that would touch just enough to grind, after few day it broke in fine.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Newnan, Georgia
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    All the parts are new...and matched.

    I'm starting to think that my 11" clutch set is not the right one for this kind of setup, even though it's for a 360. I think I'll have to go to the 10 3/8" clutch set. Any opinions on that?

    The very last paragraph of Novak's very good write up (link above) on how to install a clutch says..."the hydraulic slave system on 1980 to 1986 4 cylinder CJ's will usually not completely release a 11" clutch on a conversion engine. It does not have the necessary travel".
    Norm

    '74 CJ5 "Atomic Orange", D30&44 @ 3.73
    360 / T-18a / twin stick Dana 20 / front Aussie locker

    '67 Steven M416

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    9,321

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by nwedgar View Post
    All the parts are new...and matched.

    I'm starting to think that my 11" clutch set is not the right one for this kind of setup, even though it's for a 360. I think I'll have to go to the 10 3/8" clutch set. Any opinions on that?

    The very last paragraph of Novak's very good write up (link above) on how to install a clutch says..."the hydraulic slave system on 1980 to 1986 4 cylinder CJ's will usually not completely release a 11" clutch on a conversion engine. It does not have the necessary travel".
    From everything you quoted and what I've gathered from your posts this is a hydraulic slave travel issue, NOT a clutch issue. I think I mentioned that in your previous thread. I think you need to be looking at the travel of your hydraulics, not your clutch...
    '59 CJ-5 modified, '59 CJ-6 more modified, stock '57 CJ-5, Koenig PTO winch

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Newnan, Georgia
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    Nick, I don't disagree, but the hydraulics will only go so far and other components have to take over. I see the issue being "fixed" a number of ways, and my input to those solutions...

    1. Keep the current M/S matched pair setup and install a longer push rod.
    This is done already and will only go so far as the amount of fluid lost in the slave is simply displaced further upstream and pushes back to the slave up to the point the pedal hits the floor. This worked up to a point for me, but it won't disengage the clutch 100%.
    2. Change the fulcrum height for the clutch fork in the bellhousing so the slave can push the throwout bearing further against the clutch.
    This might actually work, if I didn't have the pedestal style ball bearing mount and could just screw a new one in there. This one comes off the list
    3. Change the throwout bearing to one what has more meat between the bearing face and where the fork attaches so it contacts the clutch sooner and throughout the full motion of the slave cylinder.
    This does almost the same as the fulcrum height, except I have to be careful of how much space I have between the clutch and the TO bearing so the TO doesn't just ride against the clutch all the time.Thinking about this solution.
    4. Change the clutch and plate to one that is a smaller diameter and/or different type.
    This might work too...the 3 finger Borg and Beck style requires more "throw" on the throwout bearing and so the travel of the slave just isn't enough to push it through to the point it releases. A multi-finger Rockford style...and/or a smaller diameter clutch will need less "throw" to disengage. This is based on reading the Novak article. Thinking about this solution
    5. Get a new fork.
    The ratio on the fork (slave to fulcrum > fulcrum to TO) might not be good enough for the slave to push the TO through to where it needs to be so I might need a new fork (which might also lead to a new TO bearing).Thinking about this solution
    6. Scrap the 4 cylinder GM M/S setup for something different.
    No guarantee that this will work either. I know the one I have can work, based on my changing out the push rod length and getting partial release from the clutch.
    I think my solution is buried in one or a combination of the other options.

    Or I just totally misinterpreted what I've been reading and I'm way off base.
    Norm

    '74 CJ5 "Atomic Orange", D30&44 @ 3.73
    360 / T-18a / twin stick Dana 20 / front Aussie locker

    '67 Steven M416

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    9,321

    Default Re: T18 throw out bearing or clutch fork is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by nwedgar View Post

    The very last paragraph of Novak's very good write up (link above) on how to install a clutch says..."the hydraulic slave system on 1980 to 1986 4 cylinder CJ's will usually not completely release a 11" clutch on a conversion engine. It does not have the necessary travel".
    I think this says it. A longer push rod doesn't change the amount of travel you have in a slave cylinder. Only allows full travel if you are not getting it to begin with.
    '59 CJ-5 modified, '59 CJ-6 more modified, stock '57 CJ-5, Koenig PTO winch

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •