splitty

I have an 82 with a Muncie in it. I switched from the stock aluminum bell housing to a Lakewood. I have mechanical linkage. The 82 fork was offset and to short to work with the Lakewood shield. So I got a 84-92 fork and everything lines up now. But with the straight fork and the adjuster rod all the way out is still half to three quarters of an inch away from the fork. Does anybody know if I get an adjuster rod from a 84-92 if it will take care of this? Or a part number for something after market that will work. Thanks guys.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

Based on what you've said,

Either you have parts that are different than what you describe or

Not everything "lines up."

Because what you've described does not.


Two unwritten laws in life and you can quote me:

If you want non-stock stuff to fit like stock, copy dimensions from the stock stuff.

If you want accurate information written for you, be prepared to document parts with part numbers and pictures.

splitty

I'm sorry I didn't provide part numbers. I don't know the part number for the stocker shifter fork. I do know for a fact it don't line up. I also know that the 84-92 Camara shifter fork part number14075725 does. I have both forks in hand. The 82 is off set at the rod end, the 84-92 isn't. So the adjuster rod has got to make up the difference. I appreciate your attempt at helping me, I hope this info helps.

splitty

Made my own.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

if it's the 84-92 Lakewood and 84-92 fork, that's going to be a very quick-release clutch.

splitty

I see what your saying. I believe it is over extending the pressure plate when I try to push the clutch pedal all the way down. I appreciate your help. Any ideas on what course of action I can take to remedy this would be greatly appreciated.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

Well, having tried hydro T5 and mech T5, my vote is to go hydro with third gen 84-up pedals and hydraulics to match. You already have the bell. and pedals take work but it's worth it.

Remember what I said about copying stock setups?

jmd

iTrader: (4)

And yes, because the fork pivot point was moved for 1984, the mech. linkage / hydraulic clutch/bell will cause overtravel of the throwout bearing and may damage your pressure plate.

While you could create a pedal stop, that quick-ratio setup is only amusing briefly, then you'll find you want to go back to a setup that works normal.

splitty

Yeah I was thinking the same. I figured pedals were going to become part of the solution. I could go back to the stock bell housing but I don't trust it. It is weak. Ok back to the drawing board. Man I cant thank you enough for helping me. You saved me so much time and effort. If you find yourself in ohio look me up. Dinner is on me.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

Haven't been in OH in 20 years.

Speaking of non-stock setups, some hydro throwout bearings that will fit the T5 or Muncie throwout bearing sleeve are out there. I'm not well versed in which one to go with though. Do your research.

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/HR...0/?image=large

http://www.summitracing.com/search/?...am-78125&dds=1

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mcl-1400-22


If the T5 bearing retainer fits the Muncie (I don't know) there's another option I won't mention yet.

rusty vango

make an adjuster rod that you can ADJUST! you want one half to three quarters of a inch of free play measured at the pedal. don't forget to make it stout. I would use no less than seven sixteenths dia rod.

splitty

Thanks Rusty. I made a rod it works good, unfortunately the rest of my set up don't play nice together. I am on the hunt for a set of 84-92 swing pedals. Also have to decide on what hydraulic clutch set up to go with.

rusty vango

whoa!! 82s have a mechanical set up. and it works well when set up properly. why would you try to combine parts from different years? no need for a hydraulic anything. as in theres the pedal rod from the pedal to the Z bar. then theres the adjustable rod from the Z bar to the clutch fork. what clutch fork are you trying to use? flat or the bent one?

splitty

I am trying to get my lakewood bell housing to work. I have to use the 84-92 straight fork with it. The problem is the straight fork don't play nice with the 82 stuff that's still in the car. When end I push the clutch pedal all the way down it over travels the t.o. bearing alot. It is not a good set up at all.

rusty vango

no its not. the lake wood stuff requires you to make things work. FYI a aluminum bell housing from 1968_1978 would be a better choice for your 82

splitty

I have the stock aluminum one but I wanted some added safety from the steel bellhousing.. I have to keep fishing until I find the right combination of parts that get it work correctly. I believe the 84 up stuff will work. The bell housing was in a 88 firebird. It was a road race car so I don't know how close to stock it was. I never saw the car. Jmd from here says the 84 up stuff should work. What do you think?

rusty vango

well, 82 was the only year 3rd gen that had a Muncie and a mechanical clutch.so that being said. anything else you use is going to have to be fabbed up.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

Just to go over a few things;

7/16" rods are unnecessary with a modern diapragm clutch. Maybe with an antique stiff (to compensate for poor materials available) clutch.

The dilemna with the 82-83 mechanical linkage is the z-bar has a double bend in the tube and it doesn't rotate evenly. It's similar to the 78-up A/G-body stuff, but the 82-83 is worse. Ultimately, it doesn't drive smoothly once it gets wear in it, and pretty much all the z-bars break or if used, show weld repairs. That's why I suggested going 84-92; it sounds like the 84-up fork working means the bellhousing is a Lakewood for 84-92 (PN 15020) with mount for slave cylinder. That setup drives smoother besides.

We still haven't seen pictures of it, though.

68-78 aluminum bellhousings are only magic according to the aging family member who misled you to believe in them. Advantage over the 82 bellhousing? None. If he's going to run mechanical linkage, the 82 bell puts the fork in the right place to do so. If he's going to run a scattershield with it, the Lakewood 15015 works.

Fab isn't required to put 84-92 parts in an 82 to change to hydraulic clutch. Just the right bellhousing / scattershield and a bunch of stock parts. The scattershield he already has. There are several ways to go about doing it, most all of which will show to be more reliable than the 82-83 linkage.

splitty

^^^All of this^^^ is exactly what I am seeing while working on the car.

Yes I believe it is 15020 with the mount for slave cylinder.

So I need to get the 84-92 master cyl, slave cyl, complete swing pedal set, hoses, and a throw out bearing.
In your experience is it crucial to use adjustable dowel pins with a Lakewood shield? I didn't put a dial indicator on it but everything appears to be good, nothing binding or not ling up. Thanks for all the information. I've been reading up on the available hydraulic systems.

rusty vango

in 40 years of building cars, I have only had to resort to the offset dowels 3 times.and they were dodges. never chevys. of course, check. but you probably wont need em.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

You will probably find the throwout bearing to be 82-92; not different. You already found that release worked, so the short design standard Chevy one you (probably; without pictures!) had should be correct.

The 84-92 stuff is fine, but the plastic hose is not the hot ticket if you're running exhaust that might run under it. I've used the 93-97 stuff in the 84-92 setups without issue, but the slave / master bores are slightly different and you get a stainless line.

I'd set a dial up and see how off the Lakewood is. The donor '88 is an unknown at this point and some Lakewoods aren't perfect but maybe that one is.