Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
11-04-2005, 01:39 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
bearing.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Captain Purple wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
I've owned there have been MANY
> > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
repeatedly by different people that this is
> > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> >
> > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
rather than having these things fixed
> > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
transmission vehicles.
> >
> > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> >
> > Capt. Purple
a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
bearing.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Captain Purple wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
I've owned there have been MANY
> > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
repeatedly by different people that this is
> > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> >
> > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
rather than having these things fixed
> > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
transmission vehicles.
> >
> > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> >
> > Capt. Purple
11-04-2005, 01:39 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
bearing.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Captain Purple wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
I've owned there have been MANY
> > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
repeatedly by different people that this is
> > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> >
> > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
rather than having these things fixed
> > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
transmission vehicles.
> >
> > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> >
> > Capt. Purple
a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
bearing.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Captain Purple wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
I've owned there have been MANY
> > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
repeatedly by different people that this is
> > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> >
> > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
rather than having these things fixed
> > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
transmission vehicles.
> >
> > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> >
> > Capt. Purple
11-04-2005, 01:39 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
bearing.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Captain Purple wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
I've owned there have been MANY
> > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
repeatedly by different people that this is
> > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> >
> > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
rather than having these things fixed
> > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
transmission vehicles.
> >
> > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> >
> > Capt. Purple
a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
bearing.
Earle
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Captain Purple wrote:
> >
> > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
I've owned there have been MANY
> > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
repeatedly by different people that this is
> > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> >
> > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
rather than having these things fixed
> > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
transmission vehicles.
> >
> > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> >
> > Capt. Purple
11-04-2005, 04:11 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
installed.
I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
<nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
> If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
> a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
> clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
> a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
> you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> bearing.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Captain Purple wrote:
> > >
> > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
> I've owned there have been MANY
> > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > >
> > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
> rather than having these things fixed
> > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> transmission vehicles.
> > >
> > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> > >
> > > Capt. Purple
>
>
--
Will Honea
swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
installed.
I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
<nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
> If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
> a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
> clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
> a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
> you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> bearing.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Captain Purple wrote:
> > >
> > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
> I've owned there have been MANY
> > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > >
> > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
> rather than having these things fixed
> > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> transmission vehicles.
> > >
> > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> > >
> > > Capt. Purple
>
>
--
Will Honea
11-04-2005, 04:11 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
installed.
I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
<nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
> If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
> a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
> clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
> a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
> you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> bearing.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Captain Purple wrote:
> > >
> > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
> I've owned there have been MANY
> > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > >
> > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
> rather than having these things fixed
> > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> transmission vehicles.
> > >
> > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> > >
> > > Capt. Purple
>
>
--
Will Honea
swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
installed.
I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
<nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
> If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
> a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
> clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
> a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
> you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> bearing.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Captain Purple wrote:
> > >
> > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
> I've owned there have been MANY
> > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > >
> > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
> rather than having these things fixed
> > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> transmission vehicles.
> > >
> > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> > >
> > > Capt. Purple
>
>
--
Will Honea
11-04-2005, 04:11 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
installed.
I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
<nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
> If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
> a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
> clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
> a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
> you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> bearing.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Captain Purple wrote:
> > >
> > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
> I've owned there have been MANY
> > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > >
> > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
> rather than having these things fixed
> > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> transmission vehicles.
> > >
> > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> > >
> > > Capt. Purple
>
>
--
Will Honea
swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
installed.
I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
<nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
> If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but converting to
> a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and mechanical
> clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is more
> a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers. If
> you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> bearing.
>
> Earle
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Captain Purple wrote:
> > >
> > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the jeeps
> I've owned there have been MANY
> > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > >
> > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc etc
> rather than having these things fixed
> > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> transmission vehicles.
> > >
> > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm told???
> > >
> > > Capt. Purple
>
>
--
Will Honea
11-04-2005, 04:35 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
You are talking about the French transmission. If this guy has the Japanese
transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
Earle
"Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-dsCWqyxmZOlN@anon.none.net...
> I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
> swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
> included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
> bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
> slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
> difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
> holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
> clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
> while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
> bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
> installed.
>
> I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
> replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
> grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
> bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
> ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
> tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
> <nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but
converting to
> > a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> > right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and
mechanical
> > clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is
more
> > a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> > will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> > poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers.
If
> > you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> > model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> > replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> > because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> > bearing.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> > > Captain Purple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the
jeeps
> > I've owned there have been MANY
> > > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> > repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc
etc
> > rather than having these things fixed
> > > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> > transmission vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm
told???
> > > >
> > > > Capt. Purple
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
Earle
"Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-dsCWqyxmZOlN@anon.none.net...
> I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
> swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
> included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
> bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
> slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
> difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
> holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
> clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
> while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
> bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
> installed.
>
> I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
> replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
> grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
> bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
> ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
> tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
> <nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but
converting to
> > a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> > right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and
mechanical
> > clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is
more
> > a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> > will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> > poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers.
If
> > you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> > model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> > replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> > because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> > bearing.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> > > Captain Purple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the
jeeps
> > I've owned there have been MANY
> > > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> > repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc
etc
> > rather than having these things fixed
> > > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> > transmission vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm
told???
> > > >
> > > > Capt. Purple
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
11-04-2005, 04:35 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
You are talking about the French transmission. If this guy has the Japanese
transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
Earle
"Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-dsCWqyxmZOlN@anon.none.net...
> I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
> swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
> included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
> bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
> slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
> difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
> holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
> clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
> while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
> bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
> installed.
>
> I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
> replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
> grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
> bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
> ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
> tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
> <nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but
converting to
> > a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> > right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and
mechanical
> > clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is
more
> > a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> > will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> > poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers.
If
> > you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> > model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> > replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> > because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> > bearing.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> > > Captain Purple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the
jeeps
> > I've owned there have been MANY
> > > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> > repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc
etc
> > rather than having these things fixed
> > > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> > transmission vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm
told???
> > > >
> > > > Capt. Purple
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
Earle
"Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-dsCWqyxmZOlN@anon.none.net...
> I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
> swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
> included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
> bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
> slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
> difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
> holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
> clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
> while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
> bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
> installed.
>
> I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
> replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
> grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
> bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
> ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
> tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
> <nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but
converting to
> > a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> > right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and
mechanical
> > clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is
more
> > a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> > will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> > poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers.
If
> > you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> > model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> > replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> > because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> > bearing.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> > > Captain Purple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the
jeeps
> > I've owned there have been MANY
> > > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> > repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc
etc
> > rather than having these things fixed
> > > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> > transmission vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm
told???
> > > >
> > > > Capt. Purple
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
11-04-2005, 04:35 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
You are talking about the French transmission. If this guy has the Japanese
transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
Earle
"Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-dsCWqyxmZOlN@anon.none.net...
> I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
> swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
> included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
> bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
> slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
> difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
> holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
> clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
> while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
> bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
> installed.
>
> I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
> replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
> grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
> bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
> ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
> tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
> <nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but
converting to
> > a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> > right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and
mechanical
> > clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is
more
> > a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> > will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> > poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers.
If
> > you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> > model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> > replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> > because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> > bearing.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> > > Captain Purple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the
jeeps
> > I've owned there have been MANY
> > > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> > repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc
etc
> > rather than having these things fixed
> > > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> > transmission vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm
told???
> > > >
> > > > Capt. Purple
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
Earle
"Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-pn2-dsCWqyxmZOlN@anon.none.net...
> I'm not sure you even need the new bell housing, Earle. When I
> swapped mine out ('88 Commanche) the yard I bought the new tranny from
> included the bell housing. When I sat the old (BA10/5 1988 vintage)
> bell housing next to the 94 bell housing he sent for the external
> slave, they were close enough to identical that I couldn't tell the
> difference with one minor exception: I had to drill out the mounting
> holes for the slave cylinder and rethread them. The old internal
> clutch just had a cover plate and uses small screws to hold it in
> while the slave mount needed bolts that were about 1mm larger. The 88
> bell housing even had the pivot ball for the throwout arm already
> installed.
>
> I used the junkyard slave for over 3 years before it went out. The
> replacement slave lasted a year before it literally came apart (The
> grove for the snap ring that held the cylinder in the mount plate was
> bad and allowed the snap ring to work out of the groove). Best mod I
> ever made, IMO. 2 bolts and one roll pin to change vs. pulling the
> tranny/tc just to change the slave is a big plus!
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:39:15 UTC "Earle Horton"
> <nurse-nospam-busters@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is already in the car, mechanical systems are great, but
converting to
> > a mechanical linkage is tricky, because everything has to line up just
> > right. I have known staunch supporters of hydraulic, cable, and
mechanical
> > clutch actuating systems, and have come to the conclusion that this is
more
> > a philosophical preference, than anything else. They all wear out, most
> > will give good service if maintained properly, and some are in fact just
> > poorly designed, like the hydraulic system in the pre-1994 Wranglers.
If
> > you have an early Wrangler, where the clutch slave has failed, the later
> > model with the external cylinder is probably the most straightforward
> > replacement. You will have to get the later style bell housing anyway,
> > because the early one does not provide mechanical access to the throwout
> > bearing.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:436B9FD6.28E40457@sympatico.ca...
> > > I much prefer the mechanical linkage like the CJ7 has. If I was going
> > > to do a conversion, that is what I would go for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> > > Captain Purple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here we go again. Am I crazy or what? (don't answer that.) On the
jeeps
> > I've owned there have been MANY
> > > > repairs to the clutch hydraulic slave cylinders. I have been told
> > repeatedly by different people that this is
> > > > a thorn in the side and to more or less live with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd MUCH rather put the money into other goodies, new tires, etc etc
etc
> > rather than having these things fixed
> > > > every 6-7 months for years, all with different 91, 92, 93, 94 std
> > transmission vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Just venting. Could always be worse. Is this as common as I'm
told???
> > > >
> > > > Capt. Purple
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Will Honea
11-04-2005, 05:29 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oh, no! Not the bad clutch slave again !
Hi Earle,
Ditto, in the newer X15 bell the external slave pushes forward from
the back through the hole seen at:
http://www.----------.com/ax5_ax15.jpg to a new design fork that pivots
from the other side. Weird!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> You are talking about the French transmission. If this guy has the Japanese
> transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
>
> Earle
Ditto, in the newer X15 bell the external slave pushes forward from
the back through the hole seen at:
http://www.----------.com/ax5_ax15.jpg to a new design fork that pivots
from the other side. Weird!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> You are talking about the French transmission. If this guy has the Japanese
> transmission, I am not so sure that it is the same.
>
> Earle