Hydraulic clutch?

AnthonyG

AnthonyG

Well-known member
Has anybody converted to a hydraulic clutch. Interested what's used at the thrust bearing fork & how the power cylinder and rod that would actuate it is mounted? Does any Mfgr. make something or is a must fab item?
 
How will depend on what year and ****** and other mods.
When I did it on my 32 w/39 ****** in the 60's there was a slave cyl (universal) available mail away. Fabricated a flat plate that bolted to the top of the ******, attached the slave and fabricated from the slave to the ****** clutch arm. Obviously a 2nd M/Cyl is also needed.
Paul in CT
 
In the 60s, on my 1st car, I put a flathead in a model A with a 39 trans and did what 31flamingo did. Made a bracket for a slave cyl. Pretty sure it came from J.C. Whitney like most of the stuff on that car (I was 12 years old).
I don't know about modern hydraulic T.O bearings if one of those could be made to work.
 
A lot of Chevys use them, like Camaros I think (think that is what is laying around in my garage).
 
I don't think there's an easier, smoother, more compact & trouble-free clutch actuator than on the original mechanical setups in the original cars. That goes for mehanical brakes too (with Ted's floaters of course). 8^) Jack E/NJ
 
Speedway has a push type slave cylinder for clutch fork. The stroke is 1.2", think that's enough? JSeery, do u remember or could u check the one in u'r garage to see approx stroke & do u remember where u got it?
 
I really have no idea, I have a pile of them. Most are race units, but I thought a couple were Chevy. The type I was referring to is part of the throwout bearing itself. I think you are referring to a slave cylinder on the fork (guess I didn't read the OP that well!). You want to extinction on the slave cylinder to match what the movement would be on a stock fork setup.
 

Attachments

  • 91025610_L_62d923ee-fe14-4fe1-aef3-408490227c2c.jpg
    91025610_L_62d923ee-fe14-4fe1-aef3-408490227c2c.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
Yes that’s what I need. Any idea what that travel is? Do u think the 1.2” will do? I do remember when building mine that the travel is leveraged quite a bit, like 4” on the pedal maybe 1” on the linkage to fork. Was hoping someone knew what the actual travel needs to be?
 
Jack E/NJ said:
I don't think there's an easier, smoother, more compact & trouble-free clutch actuator than on the original mechanical setups in the original cars. That goes for mehanical brakes too (with Ted's floaters of course). 8^) Jack E/NJ
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not sure why you'd want the complexity of a hydraulic clutch on an old, Flathead-era Ford. The stock units work pretty brilliantly.
 
Anthony...Let's back-up and regroup. I believe you have a flathead, correct? Is it true that you are also still running the '35 transmission? Are you in fact still set-up actuating the STOCK '35 clutch ARM that moves the throwout fork? If so, allow me to guess that your current necessity to utilize a hydraulic clutch comes as a result of utilizing Richard's hydraulic brake mod, which probably does away with part of the stock clutch operating mechanism.

We really need a few more definitive facts about what you have. Because of pedal ratios and clutch arm and linkage dimensions, you can't just pull the answers out of thin air. Otherwise, you'll end up with a clutch that won't fully release, or a clutch pedal that is far too hard to easily push with normal force. DD
 
JSeery
Have you had good experiences using the Hydraulic throw out parts?
I have no experience, but had heard some people discuss problems with them.
Just wondering?
Thanks
Jim
 
Thought someone might know the actual stroke travel at the fork. Sounds like not. No problem. I’ll measure it.
 
AnthonyG said:
Thought someone might know the actual stroke travel at the fork. Sounds like not. No problem. I’ll measure it.
Click to expand...

Again, you're using the term "FORK". The fork is the piece directly behind the throwout bearing. IF you're wanting to use an internal, hydraulically actuated throwout bearing, then what you reference (fork movement) is what counts. If you're wanting a hydraulic slave cylinder to move the original arm on the original throwout cross shaft, then that is the nomenclature that you need to reference.....two totally different ways of accomplishing the same mission. Quite frankly, the external slave cylinder is the most reliable way to do it, as well as most cost effective.....MY OPINION! DD
 
Kahuna said:
JSeery
Have you had good experiences using the Hydraulic throw out parts?
I have no experience, but had heard some people discuss problems with them.
Just wondering?
Thanks
Jim
Click to expand...

I don't have much experience with them. My kids/grandkids mess with them on race cars and were looking to use them on the 5.0 mustang setups vs the cable. I prefer the cable, but it has it's own issues.
 
My 62 Chevy truck came factory with a dual master cylinder for clutch and brake and a slave cylinder. Works very smooth. I think this was the same set up used on Milners coupe in American Graffiti. Good luck with yours. Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top