Clutch fork side and disengagement- does it matter?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Kmehr

Kmehr

Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Threads
34
Messages
526
Location
Colorado
Had an H55f installed in my 40. Re-used the bell housing from my 1981 FJ45, which was the cast iron bell housing. The H55 is brand new from Toyota. It is very tough to shift, and I know it may need some wearing in, but it just doesn't "feel" right. When the shop installed everything, they moved the clutch fork to the driver's side, and the pivot ball (obviously) as well. While it appears to "fit" there, the machining on the housing is different where the pivot ball installed from one side to the other, so its currently at an angle, and to me clearly looks wrong.

The clutch engages super low, like nearly at the floor low. The slave is brand new, and ordered to match the fj45. I put in a new master, for 75+ trucks, and haven't given it a drive yet, but it appears to be the same engagement point. the Slave is adjusted with the rod all the way extended. The master is adjust nearly to the end of the push rod as well. When I'm underneath and have my son work the pedal, at fully disengaged, there is more than 1/4in air gap between the throwout bearing and the pressure plate. Makes sense this huge air gap is causing a lot of travel at the clutch pedal before anything happens. The fork seems to have way too much travel as is to be setup right.

Its hard to see in the photos, because I had trouble getting it to focus on the right spot, but you can see the pivot ball has a large hex nut at its base, and being installed on the driver's side causes it to not sit flush on the inside of the bell housing.

Hoping to go armed with more concrete info before I take it back to the installing shop, so my questions are:

1- does it matter which side the pivot arm is coming from? I.E. is the throw going to be the same from side to side, even if the pivot ball install looks janky?

2- when underneath, should you be able to see the clutch disc completely disengage from the flywheel at full depression? I.E. should there be be an air gap between the clutch disc and the flywheel when the pedal is all the way in?

IMG_8561.webp


IMG_8560.webp
 
Have you tried shortening the adjustment rod adjustment? I think if it was shortened a bit there wouldn't be as much of a gap. The clutch disc should completely disengage. It doesn't take much of a gap. I've swapped slave sides when I removed the 3 speed and went to a stock 4 speed and sbc without any issues.
 
pb4ugo said:
Have you tried shortening the adjustment rod adjustment? I think if it was shortened a bit there wouldn't be as much of a gap. The clutch disc should completely disengage. It doesn't take much of a gap. I've swapped slave sides when I removed the 3 speed and went to a stock 4 speed and sbc without any issues.
Click to expand...
maybe I'm being dense here, but wouldn't shortening the slave rod make the air gap larger?
 
My apologies, I thought you were talking about an air gap between the pp and clutch disc. The only things to check is pedal height adjustment, and free play, but it sounds like you have that covered. You could try bleeding the slave and see if that changes the engagement point. The piston needs to be fully retracted in the slave cylinder and has a return spring. Other than that, maybe making or finding a longer rod if there's room between the pp and throw out bearing to try and get a higher engagement.
 
Was there a reason they moved the clutch slave to the left side? Toyota originally had it on the driver's side because the high low shifter pivoted on the right side motor mount. Took a while but Toyota moved to the right side on FJ40s after moving to direct shift low range. Reason why is the same as brake lines and wiring runs down the right side on FJ40s. It keeps the hydraulic fluid away from the exhaust heat. A 81 FJ40 exhaust runs outside the frame from the cowl to after the B pillar. Looks like your exhaust runs inside the frame by the clutch slave cylinder. Makes sense for the clutch slave to be on the right side unless there was some other reason why?
 
Living in the Past said:
Was there a reason they moved the clutch slave to the left side? Toyota originally had it on the driver's side because the high low shifter pivoted on the right side motor mount. Took a while but Toyota moved to the right side on FJ40s after moving to direct shift low range. Reason why is the same as brake lines and wiring runs down the right side on FJ40s. It keeps the hydraulic fluid away from the exhaust heat. A 81 FJ40 exhaust runs outside the frame from the cowl to after the B pillar. Looks like your exhaust runs inside the frame by the clutch slave cylinder. Makes sense for the clutch slave to be on the right side unless there was some other reason why?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t consulted about moving it. The slave on the 3spd was on the drivers side, but the bellhousing I took them used a passenger side throw.

Looking a bit more in depth at things, the drivers side and passenger side pivot ball points are definitely not mirror image of each other, either in the casting, or the location.

Looking at some photos of my 45 when I pulled this bellhousing and compared to now, the fore/aft position of the slave mount from where it was on the 45, to whatever cobbled mess they used on the drivers side is not the same. Currently the slave is what looks like about two inches towards the front from where it was on the passenger side. Makes the engagement point (or lack of total disengagement) make sense even though the clutch pedal and slave push rod are as extended as they can be.

Uhg. Pretty grumpy about this.
 
There are 2 different styles of pivot ball also, one is longer than the other. 2 different styles of clutch forks as well.

I had to cobble some stuff together to get mine adjusted how I wanted in the end.

Sorry if that was already covered.
 
I thought I covered some of this in my build thread, but I just browsed the first 30ish pages and nothing caught my attention.
 
rkymtnflyfisher said:
There are 2 different styles of pivot ball also, one is longer than the other. 2 different styles of clutch forks as well.

I had to cobble some stuff together to get mine adjusted how I wanted in the end.

Sorry if that was already covered.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The flywheel, pressure plate, throw out bearing and clutch fork have to match. The ball the clutch pivots on is either for stamped steel or cast iron forks . 8/74 three finger pressure changed to diaphragm style. All components changed at that time. While I see two clutch forks after 8/74 the pivot ball stayed the same. After 8/74 only show one ball for FJ40s with a four speed. 81 FJ45 with a three speed I didn't research. That could be different.
 
Living in the Past said:
Interesting. The flywheel, pressure plate, throw out bearing and clutch fork have to match. The ball the clutch pivots on is either for stamped steel or cast iron forks . 8/74 three finger pressure changed to diaphragm style. All components changed at that time. While I see two clutch forks after 8/74 the pivot ball stayed the same. After 8/74 only show one ball for FJ40s with a four speed. 81 FJ45 with a three speed I didn't research. That could be different.
Click to expand...


I think the pivot ball changed along with the bearing fork. (And everything else)
 
I found a photo that shows the difference in mounting position:

IMG_0293.webp


Then on my 45, where this bellhousing came from, you can see that it mounts probably two inches further back towards the rear of the truck:

IMG_8030.webp

IMG_8027.webp

IMG_8029.webp
 
Those aren’t perfect pictures, but comparing the two, the front bolt of the slave as installed on my 45 was rear of the starter mating surface, but the front bolt on the rusty one is two inches or so forward of the front of the bellhousing, which is the same as the starter surface. Here is my slave as installed now:

IMG_8554.webp
 
Kmehr said:
Those aren’t perfect pictures, but comparing the two, the front bolt of the slave as installed on my 45 was rear of the starter mating surface, but the front bolt on the rusty one is two inches or so forward of the front of the bellhousing, which is the same as the starter surface. Here is my slave as installed now:

View attachment 4127957
Click to expand...

is the bolt missing in the frame mount?



it looks like the ball is the short 1 that goes with the cast fork
is there a spot for a return spring on the end of the fork by the slave? there are 2 different length forks,
so the installer used the OE mount from the 3 speed slave on the 4 speed bellhousing? did they drill and tap for the mounts into the bellhousing?
was the 81 bellhousing setup for side mounts?
 
3_puppies said:
is the bolt missing in the frame mount?



it looks like the ball is the short 1 that goes with the cast fork
is there a spot for a return spring on the end of the fork by the slave? there are 2 different length forks,
so the installer used the OE mount from the 3 speed slave on the 4 speed bellhousing? did they drill and tap for the mounts into the bellhousing?
was the 81 bellhousing setup for side mounts?
Click to expand...
Yes there are missing bolts on both sides of the frame mounts, I suspect because the 81 bellhousing wasn’t setup for using them and there is no hole there for all of the bolts.

The installer also made a skid plate crossmember combo at my request, similar to the one 4plus makes, (that’s another can of worms), so I had anticipated that would provide the support for the transmission, and was pretty surprised when I got the truck back that the frame ears had made it onto my 81 bellhousing. We hadn’t talked about it at all, and I didn’t even consider whether they’d fit, which apparently they don’t, at least not completely.

In short, it does appear I’ve discovered the problem here- the mounting position of the slave is in a different spot than it needs to be and that’s throwing off the clutch geometry.
 
I had a similar issue long ago, lost my slave push rod on the trail somehow, (which really sucked getting home), and the replacement rod just seemed too short when installed. I just fabricated a slightly longer slave cylinder push rod from a grade 8 bolt and a couple nuts. Wasn't hard and fixed my pedal engagement symptoms.
 
@cruisermatt makes a billet replacement that is pretty slick looking. It also gives a better comparison view of how the fore/aft position is different from the rusty driver's side photo I've got shown above:

1777048902754.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom