RTH: Clutch fork, hub, and T/O bearing questions (1 Viewer)

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

RWBeringer4x4

Mechanically Challenged
SILVER Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Threads
139
Messages
5,435
Location
The People's Republik of Maryland
Hey all,

I’m getting ready to bolt my 350 back up to my transmission, and came across some interesting stuff when comparing the clutch components that came out vs. what’s going in...

The old stuff that came out of my Lakewood scattershield Bellhousing is on the right, the new stuff going in is on the left:

EB8E2767-C7D5-4415-A072-040850CF2EAC.jpeg


The forks are both 4 speed forks, though my old one had been "clearanced" for some reason.

The throw out bearings are significantly different looking - the old one is smaller, with a Fereral Mogul part number 2065-16. This appears to be a Ford and Dodge application - but I can’t find mention of it being used in a Chevy or Toyota. It LOOKS a lot like a Toyota 3-speed bearing though...

F4BE8EA6-EF1D-4F80-82FE-25705138CE54.jpeg


AF771105-5AD0-4B04-A380-EE5247A6884B.jpeg


The hubs are different too:

A051EDD4-EF5F-427C-BDFA-EE87BBB22DAB.jpeg


The casting “ears” are about the same height but slightly different. The old one has a clear taper where the newer one is flat.

CDA9DA4B-2F05-473D-A156-5A21FF8B5794.jpeg


Just curious - is this the difference between a 3 and 4 speed hub, or is mine a 4 speed hub that had either been machined to accept a different bearing? the clutch also made a lot of noise before I took it apart, so it’s possible this taper was created by the hub riding on the pressure plate in neutral...

For what it’s worth, the pressure plate that came out was a diaphragm clutch, and not a 3 finger clutch...

Just curious what combination of parts I was running.
 
Bumping this back up for to see if we have any takers. Not that it really matters - @Downey provided the T/O Bearing and I believe Mark @65swb45 sent me the new hub and throw out bearing to go in Downey's bellhousing, so I believe all the parts going back in are correct.

I'm just interested to know what is coming OUT. Anyone know anything about what needed to be done for the old Lakewood Scattershield conversions to function properly? @reddingcruiser? @shelfboy1? I know you guys have messed with a lot of V8 conversions over the years...

I'm mostly curious to know whether you think my old hub was "machined" on purpose to take a dodge bearing, or if it was "machined" by my pressure plate for being improperly adjusted or set up.
 
i have several lakewood bellhousings the most common way was to machine the to bearing retainer on the front of the tranny to fit a chevy to bearing .your appears to be home made and is not common to anything ive seen .for my personal use i drill a gm flywheel to fit the toyota diafram clutch and use toyota parts .did this back in 74 when the diafram clutch came out new .downey used gm parts back in the day including the truck clutch fork .i removed many lakewood bell housings and replaced them with downey because lake wood sucked .i figured them out and used them for myself because i had so many free ones laying around .what you have apears to be a 1 off someone made for their own use .i saved all my toyota paper work from back in the day but cant find the instructions for the lakewood only the downey catalogs
 
Last edited:
I never used the Lakewood bell housing. On my first rig, a '71, I used the Downey three speed adapter to GM bell housing before putting in my first TH400. By the time I bought my first '76 I was a automatic transmission fan and put them in all my personal rigs. I've done the same as @shelfboy1 in the past for other folks and pulled the Lakewood in favor of the Downey bell housing.
FWIW, I always preferred adapting the t-case to the A/T as opposed to the transmission/clutch/bell housing/release fork combo.
 
Thanks for the responses guys. This definitely seems “one-off.” It all ties back to the mystery that is “Go-Ten” manufacturing and whether or not this is one of their conversions (I hope not) or if a PO thought they could do better than the Go-Ten conversion somewhere along the way.

When did Downey start making his conversion kits? I would have thought by 1975 the conversion kits would have been fairly well established.

i have several lakewood bellhousings the most common way was to machine the to bearing retainer on the front of the tranny to fit a chevy to bearing .your appears to be home made and is not common to anything ive seen .for my personal use i drill a gm flywheel to fit the toyota diafram clutch and use toyota parts .did this back in 74 when the diafram clutch came out new .downey used gm parts back in the day including the truck clutch fork .i removed many lakewood bell housings and replaced them with downey because lake wood sucked .i figured them out and used them for myself because i had so many free ones laying around .what you have apears to be a 1 off someone made for their own use .i saved all my toyota paper work from back in the day but cant find the instructions for the lakewood only the downey catalogs

I never used the Lakewood bell housing. On my first rig, a '71, I used the Downey three speed adapter to GM bell housing before putting in my first TH400. By the time I bought my first '76 I was a automatic transmission fan and put them in all my personal rigs. I've done the same as @shelfboy1 in the past for other folks and pulled the Lakewood in favor of the Downey bell housing.
FWIW, I always preferred adapting the t-case to the A/T as opposed to the transmission/clutch/bell housing/release fork combo.

Yeah, I’m an avid manual transmission fan. I’ve always preferred to row my own gears, so the Bellhousing conversion is what I’m sticking with (plus, I have all the parts). Even my daily driver Mazda is a manual. My understanding is autos are better off road but this truck is ultimately going to be about 90% street driven. Not a lot of places to off-road here!
 
Alright this is a question for @bikersmurf since I think he’s running the @Downey Bellhousing. (Or Downey if he’s around)

Got everything bolted up today, but I noticed my stock slave rod is WAY too long, even when adjusted as short as possible.

With the slave mounted it sits about an inch higher than the fork (I can space it down a bit). There’s a nice spotted adjuster that will get the slave pointed inward.

AE701EC2-5CBA-4AB5-B717-023E897C6113.jpeg


The issue is, with the stock rod, the slave piston is forced backward until it is bottomed out in the back of the bore (not sure if this is normal) but the throw out bearing is still pushed up against there pressure plate.

27B12C34-3415-4C13-B36B-ED1F87E8047A.jpeg


Is it common to need to cut some length out of the slave rod with this setup? (Or build a custom one) I didn’t see it mentioned in Downey’s manual.

Also - when at “rest,” is the push rod supposed to compress the slave’s piston backward at all, or should it sit fairly “neutral” in the bore (ie, not spring loaded, nor pushed forward by hydraulics)?

Lastly - what does a typical “throw” look like for these cylinders - obviously this will come out in adjustmet but if I have to build a new rod, I want to ensure I have sufficient adjustment available. At rest, should the bearing hub be backed all the way up the the transmission, with about a full inch of travel forward to engage the pressure plate, or does it hang out somewhere in the middle - not “on” the pressure plate, but 2-3 mm off the diaphragm when disengaged?
 
First off, yes it is normal to need to shorten the pushrod... but before you mount start cutting, you'll need to reposition the slave a tad.

Jim @Downey will likely know that bracket better than me, because it is different from mine. I'm not sure if it can be aimed towards the fork or if your fork isn't correct for that bracket.

The mount that came with my DOWNEY kit was a piece of 1"x.25" flat bar about 6 or 7" long with three holes in it. It mounted in the same position, however, the front bolt also went through the rear slave mounting hole. This puts the bleeder on the top and the slave about 1" closer to the center of the truck. The second slave hole mounts to the third hole in the bar. I'll look and see if I can find a pic or take a new one.
 
Btw, the rounded one looks like the 2F one I used.

I'll take some better pictures tomorrow... but for now:
IMG_6875.JPG
IMG_6876.JPG
IMG_6877.JPG
 
Thanks @bikersmurf - I’m pretty sure Downey sourced the fork from Mark when I bought the kit, so I think the fork is correct. It’s a 4-speed fork, not the earlier stamped steel one.

The slave in the picture I posted above was in no way in its final position - it was just there to hold the fork in place while I installed the transmission, but it was enough to realize I wouldn’t be able to use the existing rod in its native form.

If the rear bolt is adjusted out in the slot all the way in the slot, the slave points pretty much right at the fork. It will also need to be spaced down about an inch (currently sits too high).
 
Thanks @jim land - I strongly suspect @bikersmurf would have a similar looking mount based on his description. This would set the slave back about an inch from where the Downey bracket would orient it. This could be enough to allow for the slave pushrod to be run unmodified.

As for the spring tab modification - compared to the one laying on my floor a couple pictures up, it looks like you may have needed to move the tab back on the bracket a bit?
 
this is my home made braket set-up , i did not remember shortening the rod , in my case, the spring holding tab need some modification to keep the spring in tension so the piston go back in the slave until it buttom

View attachment 1626802

View attachment 1626803

@RWBeringer4x4, you're correct that is precisely what mine looks like.

The one modification I made was to replace the bolt that's hitting the rubber slave boot with a tapered head bolt. By countersinking the head, the head became flush with the bar, eliminating the interfering.
 
@RWBeringer4x4, you're correct that is precisely what mine looks like.

The one modification I made was to replace the bolt that's hitting the rubber slave boot with a tapered head bolt. By countersinking the head, the head became flush with the bar, eliminating the interfering.

Good idea on the countersink. I think if I stick to the bracket currently on the bellhousing, and use spacers to move the cylinder down and more in-line, my current setup might work. It might also avoid the bolt by placing the cylinder further down. It doesn't seem like building a new, shorter pushrod would be rocket science. Is there a special type of steel involved or do I just buy the appropriately sized mild metal rod and tap it with appropriate threads and transfer the adjustment nuts over? I can't imaging the force on the rod is particularly immense.
 
First off, yes it is normal to need to shorten the pushrod... but before you mount start cutting, you'll need to reposition the slave a tad.

Jim @Downey will likely know that bracket better than me, because it is different from mine. I'm not sure if it can be aimed towards the fork or if your fork isn't correct for that bracket.

The mount that came with my DOWNEY kit was a piece of 1"x.25" flat bar about 6 or 7" long with three holes in it. It mounted in the same position, however, the front bolt also went through the rear slave mounting hole. This puts the bleeder on the top and the slave about 1" closer to the center of the truck. The second slave hole mounts to the third hole in the bar. I'll look and see if I can find a pic or take a new one.
i made my own slave brackets out of flat stock never use that style .cutting the rod is normal since they come in several different lenghts depending on yea you use
 
Rick, post #10 above shows the first version of the Downey slave cylinder mounting bracket, a 3 bolt hole flat plate. Your post #6 above shows the newer version of the Downey slave cylinder mounting bracket, but you are mis-using it. Notice that the front bolt hole (closest to front of vehicle) is oval, designed to let you point the slave cylinder on an angle, pointing directly towards the end of the shift fork. You have not used that feature yet, but I'm sure you will.
BTW, the problem with using the Lakewood scatter shield bellhousings in a Chevota conversion is they do not machine align the engine to the tranny (unless you own a CNC milling machine that can properly locate alignment dowl pins). Typically they only provide "bolt pattern alignment", which is about .016 to .019 out of alignment.
 
Last edited:
Rick, post #10 above shows the first version of the Downey slave cylinder mounting bracket, a 3 bolt hole flat plate. Your post #6 above shows the newer version of the Downey slave cylinder mounting bracket, but you are mis-using it. Notice that the front bolt hole (closest to front of vehicle) is oval, designed to let you point the slave cylinder on an angle, pointing directly towards the end of the shift fork. You have not used that feature yet, but I'm sure you will.
BTW, the problem with using the Lakewood scatter shield bellhousings in a Chevota conversion is they do not machine align the engine to the tranny (unless you own a CNC milling machine that can properly locate alignment dowl pins). Typically they only provide "bolt pattern alignment", which is about .016 to .019 out of alignment.

Hey Jim,

Yes, I noticed the adjustment. By "misusing" do you just mean I didn't take advantage of the full range of adjustment? The picture above that was just very loosely mounted to hold the fork in place while I loaded in the transmission. I agree, adjusting the slave all the way out will point it right at the fork.

Just want to make sure I don't have it mounted upside down or anything!

My bigger question is the pushrod - with this new bracket, do you typically need shorten (cut down) the pushrod in this application? even with the adjustment at the minimum length, it's still holding the throw-out bearing against the pressure plate, so I assume the answer is "yes."
 
Last edited:
Rick, you do have the slave cylinder mounting bracket installed properly, just need to use the adjustability- - -easy deal.
Rick, you almost always, no matter what, have to shorten the push rod- - -easy deal.
 
Rick, you do have the slave cylinder mounting bracket installed properly, just need to use the adjustability- - -easy deal.
Rick, you almost always, no matter what, have to shorten the push rod- - -easy deal.

Perfect -

Thanks Jim! (And all)

Sounds like I have my marching orders!
 
I thought I read somewhere here on mud a long time ago (sorry for crappy reference) that the clutch fork return spring’s purpose is simply to keep the slave rod in contact with the clutch fork, not to necessarily be the return force for the fork. IIRC it was Mark (65swb45) who pointed this out to me. I only mention that because of the concern about pushing the slave rod all the way into the slave cylinder on retraction. I think it’s more of a neutral position at rest as stated/mentioned. Hopefully Mark or someone with better knowledge will help correct my speculation if incorrect.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom