Register now to get rid of these ads!

Hot Rods Who's running external clutch slaves

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by model A hooligan, Apr 28, 2018.

  1. Not really sure what the difference would be. As long as it's a stationary mount,why would it care where it's mounted? Besides the movement the trans will make with vibration

    A little hard to bolt it to a Muncie.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  2. Because the engine and trans will be pulled towards the crossmember when the slave pulls; movement will be dependent on the firmness of the rubber mounts.
    With no shifter and linkage to deal with on the right side, just make a mount off the tailhousing bolts; kinda like the mount on the T5 a couple posts back.

  3. Yeah okay,I see your point. But the engine is bolted down I don't see how it would move. I understand your concept that you are saying though. I guess there could be some 'deflection' I guess is the word? I'm no engineer obviously

    I'm hearing the speedway slave doesn't pull as much as the wilwood,bummer since it's twice the price
  4. Looks like speedways pull type is .88 travel, the Howe pull is 1 1/8 and the wilwood is 1 1/4 but has the most complaints on leaking
  5. mcsfabrication
    Joined: Nov 26, 2006
    Posts: 713


    The Howe worked, but was on the edge of not having enough travel for me. I finally went with the Willwood even after reading the bad reviews. First two leaked within a week (bought mine through Summit) and they exchanged them both. Third one is in about a year now, still working, but noticed a drop of fluid just recently on the cylinder. I DO have a pretty aggressive clutch, but will replace with the Chevy truck push unit this time around.
    As mentioned here many times, your mileage may vary.
  6. Most external slaves (even the TO bearing type) are prone to leaks. Although masters and slaves are set up to be used with some mis-alignment, now and then you got a leaker. Something in my clutch system leaks, not big, but still a leak. I have to pull back the boots on the components to see what it is.
  7. I'd like to run a push style but there's just no room.especially since the push one is so short I'm sure it has a very small amount of travel and needs a shorter fork. I'd have to REALLY angle it to get it to fit. Unless I maybe cut the fork up again and make it sweep down to try and mount under the starter.

  8. The throw out bearings have absolutely terrible reviews. I haven't seen anyone say they work without leaks.

    I had a ford ranger with a hydro bearing that had a small leak. No fluid but it would need bleeding if I drove it a full day. I could get 1 week out of it if it was just to work and back
  9. No room?
    How much room do you actually have?
    You don't have 2" clearance?
    Can't get it to swing in the hollow of the frame rail?
    RICH B likes this.
  10. ^^^^^ That's a keeper right there.
    31Vicky with a hemi likes this.
  11. As I mentioned,there's a starter in the way
  12. ? Have you been following the post?
  13. I have a small 3/4 push style, needs to have a shorter fork to get full movement,at its longest point without being short the slave hits the starter even at an angle. If the fork was shorter it wouldn't even be close to lined up.
  14. I have been following,
    And trying to help you out.

    I've not seen anywhere what you working on, what engine Trans or bell housing your using, what the frame is, what starter is in the way, nor a dimension of what you actually have for room.

    What I did pick up from following along is that you have a Nissan slave cylinder and that you could get 30 bucks worth of parts to work.

    There's always a way out of every problem, the route may or may not be the easiest.
    40FORDPU likes this.
  15. porknbeaner
    Joined: Sep 12, 2003
    Posts: 40,492


    I will be so I'll be watching this thread. My scatter shield has a built on bracket but you never know what will happen before it runs.
  16. Yes I have. And there many good suggestions that have been given. Some of which I'd do and some I won't do. Which one you'd like to use is totally up to you.
    metlmunchr and 40FORDPU like this.
  17. The hydraulic TO bearings always held up on the stock cars, we would avoid the z-bar because if you really took a hard shot during a race, it would pop out if the ball stud broke. I forget what we used, probably Howe or Quartermaster. They were probably made better 35 years ago.
  18. This is my Speedway slave mounted to my '55 Chevy bellhousing. I mirrored it so it is on the passenger side. The truck fork sticks way out compared to what you need. 2nd picture has the orientation correct. Some of the forged fork could be sawed or milled off.
    SLAVE MIRRORED.jpg forkin slave 221-017.jpg
  19. Vicky that comment wasn't directed towards you, I think the info is stated in the thread. Abc,muncie,model a, left hand fork
  20. That is very clean but 2 problems,one my fork doesn't stick out that far, and 2 the fittings on the clutch slave hit the frame if I move it out, or it hits the starter if I move it in. Plus I think longer work will be way less likely to actuate with such a short throw slave I'm guessing
  21. Here's what I cobbled together. I don't like where the slave has to be

    And I'm assuming this slave isn't going to push enough.

    It's 3/4 Nissan slave.

    Attached Files:

  22. Just thinking out loud

    Johnny Gee likes this.

  23. I'm open to ideas. But my battery cable and fuel lines are mounted on the frame right there. That's what the slave is close to actually.

    Is a push type THAT much better than a pull? I've never ran so I have no idea at all on what works well
  24. Also just noticed that speedway push type shown above has its fittings in a more compact spot that would get them away from the frame a bit
  25. You shortened your fork, correct That has increased your throw out bearing travel. You've stated you may us a 7/8" master. I can't do your math for you. Trial and error is your next best means to a sum without doing any math.

  26. none of that is right, I said the fork is factory length now, and I said I'm using a 3/4 master cylinder and may get a 7/8 slave. And if the fork was shorter I'm prettt sure that DECREASES travel. But it's stock length and trans is in so I'd like to leave the fork as it is in stock length.

    I'm pretty sure a pull type is all that will fit. I hear Cnc has a lip seal vs wilwood has a o ring.
  27. 7/8" slave with a 3/4" master is a good combo. I think the slave I had is rated for 1.25" of travel. But I needed less than 1" at the fork. You have to go through everything to reduce dead movement, as in slop. That sucks up valuable motion before it hits the fork. Also if you have a longer fork, more pedal motion is required to work the slave, but less effort. A shorter fork, you get better use of less pedal motion. Being hydraulic, it may only make for a slightly stiffer pedal.
  28. theres somethings you have to know.
    I posted it before but I'll try again- go back and read thru it.

    Both the Bore and stroke of the master
    Both the bore and stroke of the slave
    The distance the T O bearing needs to move
    The distance from clutch fork pivot ball to the slaves' hook up point
    The distance from clutch fork pivot ball to the T O bearing thrust surface.

    With all this info in front of you it's pretty simple math to see if it will work or if it needs adjustment to bores, strokes, distances and forces. No guessing just math.
  29. Travel would decrease where the effort is applied outside the bellhousing with a shortened fork. Load within hasn't changed as in red arrow. The green arrow would be outside of bellhousing so imagine it was moved to the right. What do you see now?
  30. Any decrease in travel is an increase in effort?

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!


Copyright © 1995-2013 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.