| ||
Visit MustangSteve's web site to view some of my work and find details for: FYIFORD Contributors' PICTURES - Power Brake Retrofit Kits for 65-66 Stangs - Classic Mustang FAQ's by MustangSteve - How to wire in a Duraspark Ignition - Mustang Ride Height Pictures and Descriptions - Steel Bushings to fit Granada Spindles to Mustang Tie Rods - Visit my EBAY store MustangSteve Performance - How to Install Granada Disc Brakes MustangSteve's Disc Brake Swap Page - FYIFORD Acronyms for guide to all the acronyms used on this page - FYIFORD Important information and upcoming events |
1 of 1
Offline
I'm doing the T5 swap on my daily driver (67 cpe, 289, C4). I have the transmission (rebuilt 3.35), but little else.
Cable or Hydraulic clutch activation?
Opinions & recommendations please.
Offline
Cable clutch. Simple, easy, cheap. Depending on which hydraulic setup you choose it will be a little smoother but probably 5X to 10X more expensive. Not worth the expense to me. YMMV.
Offline
Research both types so you have all the install details first. Keep in mind, the clutch cable install requires some mods to the bottom of the cowl via a ball peen hammer. If your cowl is solid, that should not a problem. If the cowl is "thin" due to rust issues, you may be making cowl repairs or doing a cowl replacement. I'm using the clutch cable and it turned out well, as did my new cowl install. Of course, your results may very but I wanted to share my install details for your consideration.
Offline
Back in 1993 when I converted from 429/C6 to 289/T5 I used the late model bell and the stock Z-bar linkage that Ford designed. There was not very much internet then and I did the install after reading about it in one of the Mustang magazines. About 5 years ago I upgraded the pedal with MS's roller setup as the pedal shaft had worn through the bushings and into the mount.
If I were to to it today I would use MS's cable setup. It is still mechanical and needs no fluids.
Offline
Maybe I'm just old school, but I've never been a huge fan of hydraulic clutch actuation. Mechanical setups always have better peal feel, whereas hydraulic ones tend to be numb. This makes it harder to feel the distinct difference between in and out on a hydraulic system.
Then there's cost and complexity. It takes a bit of doing to setup the MS cable clutch system, but once done its probably a lifetime deal so long as you don't burn or kink the cable due to poor routing. The only real potential wear part is the cable, which is cheap to replace. Hydraulics are initially expensive, and if they need servicing require bleeding, where can be hard to purge the air depending on the setup. Hydraulics are more complicated, and complexity and reliability are not good bedfellows.
Definitely do your own research, but I find it hard to conceive the situation where I'd recommend hydraulic over cable.
Offline
Don't think I've ever read where somebody was HAPPY with their after market hydraulic accuated clutch!
Lotsa happy cable clutch fellas.............'Don't swim up stream'!
6sally6
Offline
Seems like a clear winner...
Thanks as always.
mm
Offline
I’m totally satisfied with the cable clutch in my ‘65.
I am using the engine/transmission combo from my ‘92.
MS cable clutch operates smoother and easier than my stock quadrant setup.
I also have the roller bearings.
Research as Josh suggested.
I like the simplicity of the cable.
Offline
Nos681 wrote:
I’m totally satisfied with the cable clutch in my ‘65.
I am using the engine/transmission combo from my ‘92.
MS cable clutch operates smoother and easier than my stock quadrant setup.
I also have the roller bearings.
Research as Josh suggested.
I like the simplicity of the cable.
What he said.
Offline
No matter what route you go your going to have to modify something. I'm in the process right now using the original factory clutch system on my T5 install because "I already had all the parts". So far I've had to replace the cross member, the bell housing, the Z-bar, the drive shaft, the push rod, and the clutch leaver fulcrum. And I ain't done yet.
Offline
'Had to" or.......wanted to or........needed to?
6sal6
Offline
X2 on the roller bearing conversion. I did that as well and am quite happy with it. The factory metal bushing is often worn, and if its not I would presume that it would wear much more quickly once a clutch peal is added (if going from auto to manual anyway). The roller bearings remove a point of friction and/or bind, ensuring smooth and easy clutch operation. The cable system and Cobra clutch in my '67 has about the same pedal effort as my '02 WRX (which is hydraulic BTW, though it does have a more aggressive clutch to avoid slip with AWD and 300+HP.
Offline
6sally6 wrote:
'Had to" or.......wanted to or........needed to?
6sal6
Had to --- crossmember twice, original didn't work, SD didn't fit.
Z-bar, after putting in Borgeson steering and JBA headers the original doesn't fit.
There are two choices out there. One for Borgeson and one for JBA, not both. I figer the
Borgeson is the easiest to modify.
Driveshaft, it's either shorten the original one or install one that already fits. Went with already
fits.
Clutch lever fulcrum. The Z-bar type clutch won't work without it.
Wanted to-----Bell housing cause it was cheaper than the adaptor kit
Needed to--- Pushrod, it was shot from the old days.
I put the Pro 5.0 shifter on the trans last night, now it doesn't fit in the hole. I did the mock up with the original shifter in place. Oops! The Pro 5.0 it too big for the hole. I'm going to have to cut my card or it. I gotta think about that.
1 of 1
REMEMBER!!! When posting a question about your Mustang or other Ford on this forum, BE SURE to tell us what it is, what year, engine, etc so we have enough information to go on. |