Some advice please.
I have a part built car with a rover v8 and an LT77 gearbox. I noticed when I went to fit the slave cylinder that the pushrod that’s been fitted isn’t long enough as it only just pokes out of the bellhousing (see pic) while trying to remove the pushrod from the actuating arm, I pulled down and the pushrod came down and pulled the actuating arm with it. I’m guessing Now not only do I need to find the correct length rod, I’ve now got to take the gearbox out to refit the arm!
Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
- simonjrwinter
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:25 pm
- Location: Upminster, Essex.
Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
TR6 (V8) Hawk 289 FIA (V8) Doing my bit for global warming.
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
You are in luck. Mine is on the bench.
If measuring from outside the bell housing it will be 125 from face of clip to end of rod. Overall the rod is 136. Well mine is anyway. No obvious way of adjusting any lengths.
I do think you will have to separate bell housing from the engine to be able to clip the release arm back into position. It’s not very easy!
I was warned to hold onto the rod when pulling the slave cylinder off.
Peter C
If measuring from outside the bell housing it will be 125 from face of clip to end of rod. Overall the rod is 136. Well mine is anyway. No obvious way of adjusting any lengths.
I do think you will have to separate bell housing from the engine to be able to clip the release arm back into position. It’s not very easy!
I was warned to hold onto the rod when pulling the slave cylinder off.
Peter C
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
The slave cylinder goes into the bell housing a fair amount, so that rod is probably fine.
- simonjrwinter
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:25 pm
- Location: Upminster, Essex.
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
Once the slave goes into place, it’s right at the end of its travel. I’m wondering if the wrong pivot pin or release sleeve has been put in by the PO.
TR6 (V8) Hawk 289 FIA (V8) Doing my bit for global warming.
- rhattersley
- T289R Member
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2020 3:48 pm
- Location: Devon
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
Your photo of the rod length looks very similar to one I took before fitting my slave cylinder.
I took the photo because the plate (already modified when supplied) wasn't a good match for the cylinder and I've subsequently cut out and replaced that section. You can see when the cylinder was trial fitted how far it goes inside the bell housing.
I took the photo because the plate (already modified when supplied) wasn't a good match for the cylinder and I've subsequently cut out and replaced that section. You can see when the cylinder was trial fitted how far it goes inside the bell housing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- simonjrwinter
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:25 pm
- Location: Upminster, Essex.
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
Peter, could you do me a favour please, could you measure the length of your release bearing carrier from the face of the bearing to the end (see pic) mine measures 65mm and the pivot pin seems to be the correct one at around 40mm
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
TR6 (V8) Hawk 289 FIA (V8) Doing my bit for global warming.
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
Simon, I haven’t received my new release bearing yet as that will arrive with the engine.
The dimension from the lug you show to the rear of the bearing will be 24 mm. Thickness of bearing unknown.
Peter C
The dimension from the lug you show to the rear of the bearing will be 24 mm. Thickness of bearing unknown.
Peter C
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
Simon,
Can you return the favour with 2-3 dimensions please.
I was advised to replace my bearing support with a steel one as currently it’s plastic and therefore liable to failure. Likewise to get a re inforced release fork as they wear out on the pivot pin.
My problem is that the clearances on the slipper pads to the bottom of the slots in the bearing support have increased dramatically and give the impression they could almost increase the bending moment on the pins that support them.
The old plastic set up had 1 mm clear each side between pad and slot. The new steel version has 2.5 each side.
Can you measure across the bottom of the slots and the equivalent internal dimension of the pins and perhaps also between the fork arms.
The new fork arm suggests needing to reduce the pin dimensions to 42 but at that dimension it makes the arm foul the bearing support.
Overall width of the new bearing support being 57.55 so can’t readily squash the arms down below 58.
As it has been working perfectly OK for 2 decades I do not want to change the clearances. I’ll probably have to have close encounters between bearing support and grinder to reduce the overall width thus enabling the fork arms to be squashed another 1-2mm.
I am in discussion with Rimmers the supplier but they feel they can’t do anything as I do not have a vehicle chassis or vin number. I am about to re iterate that it is meant to be standard SD1 assembly regardless of what vehicle it is mounted in.
I’m finding this more and more that computerisation can’t cope with a description and must have a vehicle identifier even for anti freeze!
It annoys me that Rimmers supplied both arm and bearing support so why do they not assemble correctly.
Peter C
Can you return the favour with 2-3 dimensions please.
I was advised to replace my bearing support with a steel one as currently it’s plastic and therefore liable to failure. Likewise to get a re inforced release fork as they wear out on the pivot pin.
My problem is that the clearances on the slipper pads to the bottom of the slots in the bearing support have increased dramatically and give the impression they could almost increase the bending moment on the pins that support them.
The old plastic set up had 1 mm clear each side between pad and slot. The new steel version has 2.5 each side.
Can you measure across the bottom of the slots and the equivalent internal dimension of the pins and perhaps also between the fork arms.
The new fork arm suggests needing to reduce the pin dimensions to 42 but at that dimension it makes the arm foul the bearing support.
Overall width of the new bearing support being 57.55 so can’t readily squash the arms down below 58.
As it has been working perfectly OK for 2 decades I do not want to change the clearances. I’ll probably have to have close encounters between bearing support and grinder to reduce the overall width thus enabling the fork arms to be squashed another 1-2mm.
I am in discussion with Rimmers the supplier but they feel they can’t do anything as I do not have a vehicle chassis or vin number. I am about to re iterate that it is meant to be standard SD1 assembly regardless of what vehicle it is mounted in.
I’m finding this more and more that computerisation can’t cope with a description and must have a vehicle identifier even for anti freeze!
It annoys me that Rimmers supplied both arm and bearing support so why do they not assemble correctly.
Peter C
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
Forgot to mention that my slave cylinder protrudes into the bell housing by 25 mm.
Peter C
Peter C
- simonjrwinter
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:25 pm
- Location: Upminster, Essex.
Re: Clutch slave/pushrod/release arm
These any use?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
TR6 (V8) Hawk 289 FIA (V8) Doing my bit for global warming.