First time clutch problem & questions.. Whats original?

[raven68]

Just posted a intro on the welcome mat and mentioned we had some clutch problems with our 1969 F100 (302V8 manual) and we're not familiar with the basics of these F100's here in the UK.

Been getting more and more difficult to change gears and grinding when trying to engage 1st gear (so I know the clutch is dragging) with the pedal going right to the floor. So today we decided to adjust the clutch somewhere and get more positive disengagement of the clutch. However, other than the threaded rod between the pedal and master cylinder there is no other means of adjustment. The truck is fitted with a hydraulic master and slave cylinder (both are plastic with a steel tube/liner ? ) and we stripped it all out, dismantled the cylinders and found everything to be in good working order so it was all reassembled, put back in place and after a lot of hassle bleeding the air out we got back to the same operational problem as before with the clutch dragging, so we concluded the clutch plate assembly is probably at the end of its life and will soon need to be replaced. However it was also apparent there had been some weird fabrication & welding work done to the clutch fork which just didn't look right (it was Z shaped?) and was also going out of alignment when the slave cylinder was at full extension.............

When I searched online;
1. I could not find an original replacement clutch fork ( or diagrams) so I don't know what a proper one looks like but pretty sure it should not be Z shaped.!
2. From what I did find, did these trucks originally have a mechanical / cable linkage?

I'll get some pictures of the installed components and post them on here as soon as I can but would appreciate some basic confirmation of what should be standard on this year of truck please?

[TNIceWolf]

All of the clutch type stock transmissions I have seen here in the states used a pretty straightforward mechanical linkage.
Some decoding of the VIN would help determine the stock configuration.

[sargentrs]

Here's a good thread by Robroy http://www.fordification.com/forum/view ... ot#p387682 . I had the same problem with mine and followed his lead, doing the same process. Fixed it 100%. Good photos and great write up (as usual Robroy! Thanks!) Mine was a 2wd, Ford 3.03 3spd manual. Depending on the type/model of transmission, yours may be different. You might also look in the tech pages and find an exploded view of your configuration http://www.fordification.com/tech/schematics_g.htm .

[Whateverman]

you're saying that you've got hydraulic master and slave cylinders so it doesn't sound like a stock manual trans setup - these trucks originally had mechanical clutch linkage
is your tranny a 3,4 or 5spd?
if its a 5spd i'm betting its been swapped in out of a late 80's early 90's truck

[raven68]

Thanks for the replies guys. Will go do some reading of those links....
Its a recently imported 1969 F100 bought in Montana so its been in the USA for all of its working life.

The VIN shown on our registration document here is F10GRF97300
Its a 2wd with 302 manual four speed transmission that has no synchro on first gear.

You can pretty well see the clutch fork has been modified with some 'agricultural' welding so I know whats there can't be original but can't figure why someone would have gone to such an extent to cobble up such a weird configuration.... I feel that putting the mechanical linkage system back in would be too much hassle but there has to be a better hydraulic conversion I hope

Couldn't get any pics yesterday as it was raining heavily all day..... Will see what we can do today if it dries up..............

[raven68]

Ok finally got some pictures of the 'custom' clutch arrangement........ Immediately below you can see a bracket assembly with a half tube into which the slave cylinder is mounted and you can see the clutch fork has been cut and extended into an L shape. Its no wonder that its not very effective..........


This next picture shows the master cylinder and the plastic pipe to the slave cylinder. The pipe is held in by a drift pin on both cylinders.


And this is a view of the pedal position - the clutch pedal sits way higher than the brake. Is this the correct pedal? The pedal has to travel all the way to the floor to disengage the clutch


So for sure the whole clutch system is not original - it works but not very well, and I'm unsure what is the best course of action. I want to remove the gearbox, fit a new clutch fork (and clutch assembly) and would prefer a hydraulic system. Any ideas please on how this could be achieved !!

[sargentrs]

Definitely not factory! Interesting mod though. It would work but the geometry's all wrong. I'd have left the original clutch fork as is, mounted the hydraulic cylinder to the side and as far forward as possible. Then rigged some kind of "J-hook" on the end of the cylinder to the center of the dimple in the clutch fork so that the extension of the cylinder would have pushed out on the J hook and moved the clutch fork in a straight line. Either that or fabbed a bracket and mounted it to the bell housing in front of the clutch fork and put a push rod with the original style bullet sleeve on it, more like the stock set up. That would even make it an adjustable length set up to bring your clutch pedal back down to brake pedal height. That extension to the clutch fork is probably what's causing the binding.

[raven68]

Yeah you're right about the geometry all wrong ! That push rod moves sideways when you depress the clutch pedal which is why you need to shove the footpedal all the way to the floor to get it to disengage. I think your idea about forward mounting the slave cylinder, new straight clutch fork and some sort of J or Z shaped push rod will be much better geometry wise....cheers!

Is there no 'standard' hydraulic clutch system for these trucks at all, either early or late model 302's.....?
Will need to do some more homework I think.............

Any other ideas are welcome !

[sargentrs]

The mid-80's, fox body, mustangs could possibly be adapted. They are cable operated and utilizes a pivoting "quadrant" under the dash, at the clutch pedal. I've replaced those cables a couple of times and there's not really much to it. The bottom end of the cable goes through a hole in a crossmember, which could be a fixed bracket. The rest of the assembly is at the clutch pedal or attached to the firewall. Worth looking into.

[eggman918]

How about using a slave cylinder/throw out bearing that is an integral unit and rides on the input shaft
It would probably require a spacer between it and the front of the transmission,but would simplify the setup overall .
Just thinking out loud but might be worth looking into.

[basketcase0302]

Gotta' be the first "wet clutch" I've ever seen in a bump!

[sargentrs]

Ignore that previous post. Had a idiot moment. The set up I referred to is a mechanical clutch, not a hydraulic clutch. DUH! Upon further research, looks like the hydraulic clutches started on the F150's in 1980. At least that's the first instance of hydraulic clutch parts I found on Rockauto. Worth checking the bone yards for post-dent era trucks to see if they had a hydraulic clutch set up and how it was rigged. Hmmm this is getting interesting.

[raven68]

Ignore that previous post. Had a idiot moment. The set up I referred to is a mechanical clutch, not a hydraulic clutch. DUH! Upon further research, looks like the hydraulic clutches started on the F150's in 1980. At least that's the first instance of hydraulic clutch parts I found on Rockauto. Worth checking the bone yards for post-dent era trucks to see if they had a hydraulic clutch set up and how it was rigged. Hmmm this is getting interesting.

That wasn't an idiot moment at all........ I'm not averse to the mechanical / cable operated solution. Thats quite a good suggestion really !!
We have a Fox Mustang here in our garage so it could be worth looking at how compatible that could be. Maybe I ought to start another thread specifically aimed at those who may have modified / upgraded to a different set-up?

[sargentrs]

Only thing I see wrong is that the clutch fork pulled forward on the mustang while the clutch fork pushes rearward on our trucks. I believe it's in the design of the pivot point of the clutch fork in the bell housing. I've replaced the clutch in mustangs before but it's been a long time and never really payed that much attention to that aspect. Hmmm.....Darn.....now I've gotta figure it out or I won't be able to sleep tonight. Thanks a lot Raven! Just kidding

[sargentrs]

Gee, that was faster than I thought it would be. Here's a video of how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPTWVASoVaM The pivot is actually on the other end of the clutch fork and the throw out bearing sits in the center held in by a couple of clips. Since yours is a 302, like a 5.0 mustang engine, the bell housings may be similar enough to adapt the clutch fork set up to your bell housing. From the looks of it, both the clutch fork and pivot ball are readily available. I've replaced the original pivot bracket on my 302/3spd with a bolt in style instead of riveted so this is a definite possibility. You'd need a block made where one end is angled off, tapped and threaded for mounting bolts through the bell housing, and the other end is threaded to accept the pivot ball stud and a jam nut. Then locate it just right so that the clutch fork will have enough travel to engage and disengage the TOB. You can determine this by measuring the travel of the existing configuration. Then, a bracket mounted inside the firewall to hold the quadrant assembly http://www.summitracing.com/parts/SDA-555-7040/ . Extend the top of the clutch pedal and adapt to accept the end of the cable and add a bracket down by the transmission to hold the clutch cable in position in front of the clutch fork. Drill a hole in the firewall to accept the adjuster assembly. This is just getting better and better!