tight clutch pedal

[gnvair]

I'll throw this one out there to see if anyone know the answer. Knowing the 462606 has the ball stud boss set up to of been drilled for the curved or straight fork, did the standard 11" bellhousings have the same ball stud boss to be drilled for either fork?

I have had several 697 bell housings over the years. They all had the same figure 8 shaped casting on the inside of the housing.
I converted one to lower the pivot stud to the proper position.
I machined an aluminum plug to fill the pivot stud hole. I Tig welded it on both sides. Then I milled the rear face of the Bell and the aluminum casting on the inside. Then I drilled a new hole in the lower position. I had to also mill the recess for the pivot stud and finally tapped it. It is labor intensive but yields a factory style bell housing. I might do another over the winter.

 

[pagrunt]

I have had several 697 bell housings over the years. They all had the same figure 8 shaped casting on the inside of the housing.

I just did a search for the 697 & found this link that does add to the answer my question. https://www.4speedconversions.com/697.html
So if some one does as you did with a later casted bellhousing one can have a 11" clutch in our cars. Guess another good thing about GM being cheap. So the OP could convert or have someone convert an original late 697 & have a stock set up to allow better clutch adjustment.

 

[Bonnewagon]

I'll check the fork movement in the bell housing for clearance with the new parts that are giving me no adjustment (lower rod as short as possible) and no free play at pedal.

I am guessing the fork is all the way forward in the window? Perhaps even touching the housing? Do you still have the old pressure plate to compare to the new one? And the throw-out bearing? I also assume the ball stud is the old one. The problem has to be in the pressure plate, disc, and bearing total stack height. If they gave you a flat finger pressure plate then a tall bearing would come with it. The bent finger pressure plate would come with a short bearing. Perhaps they goofed and mis-matched parts. If you have the bent finger plate I am still feeling that you can salvage the parts by changing either the bearing or stud, or both to get what you need.

 

[cny78]

I am guessing the fork is all the way forward in the window? Perhaps even touching the housing? Do you still have the old pressure plate to compare to the new one? And the throw-out bearing? I also assume the ball stud is the old one. The problem has to be in the pressure plate, disc, and bearing total stack height. If they gave you a flat finger pressure plate then a tall bearing would come with it. The bent finger pressure plate would come with a short bearing. Perhaps they goofed and mis-matched parts. If you have the bent finger plate I am still feeling that you can salvage the parts by changing either the bearing or stud, or both to get what you need.

Well here's where am at: Almost positive my installed new clutch kit is a raised diaphragm with the short 11/4 " bearing. My old bearing is definitely 11/4 and the p/plate appears flat fingered. Odd match but it looks nothing like any photos of raised ones. Spent time under the car messing with fork and linkage. First of all , I can move the fork( it is the straight type) it feels free of the housing and contact with the plate. Now the geometry of the linkage. Aside from my initial issue of a tight fit with the rod between the fork and zbar offering no free play, I see a sharp angle the rod has to make contact, like 45 degrees from horizontal. So even if I made a shortened rod it would not be pushing anywhere near a level direction. This matches what I've heard about matching gbody linkage to 11" bellhousing and their forks. My #621 housing with straight fork and upper ball stud position puts the fork way too high for the gbody zbar I'm thinking. Your thoughts?

 

[Bonnewagon]

I am a Pontiac guy so not familiar with the Chevy housings/fork issues. I would defer to the other guys about the differences. However:

Almost positive my installed new clutch kit is a raised diaphragm with the short 11/4 " bearing. My old bearing is definitely 11/4 and the p/plate appears flat fingered.

If the original was flat finger and the new one is bent finger then there is your problem. If so then you can either use an even shorter bearing or a shorter ball stud. The real short studs can be hard to find so that is where the adjustable stud works.

 

[cny78]

I am a Pontiac guy so not familiar with the Chevy housings/fork issues. I would defer to the other guys about the differences. However:

If the original was flat finger and the new one is bent finger then there is your problem. If so then you can either use an even shorter bearing or a shorter ball stud. The real short studs can be hard to find so that is where the adjustable stud works.

Yep, sounds right about the height. I did hear about those adjustable studs. But am concerned about the rod angle, a whole different issue. Appears to radical to ignore.

 

[Bonnewagon]

Yes, the angle is critical. It should be a straight line from the Z bar to the fork parallel to the transmission output shaft. . I have seen offset rods but not for GM. Of course anything can be fabricated. Also after all is said and done the fork should be positioned so that the total travel occurs correctly relative to the throw-out bearing. Imagine an arc of travel where the center of the arc is perpendicular to the TOB. You don't want it too far forward or behind that imaginary line. So if the bell housing and/or fork are wrong for this application, can another fork be used to correct the problem or must the housing be modified as mentioned above? Guys? Pagrunt has beet spot on with this issue.

 

[CopperNick]

Just wondering if there is a problem between the throwout bearing and the front input shaft bearing retainer sleeve that it rides on. Any kind of wear or damage to the sleeve and the bearing will not move easily and freely along it. Apart from the matter of the length, did you happen to check the bearing id against the diameter of the sleeve. A long shot but your bearing may be meant for a Muncie instead of the Saginaw. Finally, did the throwout fork pick up the bearing correctly during the transmission install? The bearing and fork have to align to each other correctly. I had to revisit that relationship when I went to install my own transmission as the bearing was not in the correct position with respect to the fork fingers and wasn't lining up.

Nick

 

[cny78]

Nick... I replaced the input shaft on the trans at rebuild, bearing moved freely as I recall. Made a point of getting the fork on t/o bearing correctly from all the reminders of how easy folks install incorrectly. Install of trans was a hassle per my workspace. Now am second guessing all that might have gone wrong. How did you know you had a problem? My trans is in and the fork is wiggable, seems properly aligned? Thanks for weighing in.

 

[cny78]

Yes, the angle is critical. It should be a straight line from the Z bar to the fork parallel to the transmission output shaft. . I have seen offset rods but not for GM. Of course anything can be fabricated. Also after all is said and done the fork should be positioned so that the total travel occurs correctly relative to the throw-out bearing. Imagine an arc of travel where the center of the arc is perpendicular to the TOB. You don't want it too far forward or behind that imaginary line. So if the bell housing and/or fork are wrong for this application, can another fork be used to correct the problem or must the housing be modified as mentioned above? Guys? Pagrunt has beet spot on with this issue.