I have posted previously about my brand new T5, Centerforce, GM slave and all other required parts being installed correctly, but the clutch would not disengage...

I need help with a simple quesion:

I have the car up off the ground, engine OFF, T5 in gear, clutch pedal to the floor - should I be able to move the rear tires or should I not?? When in 1st, 2nd or 3rd, I can't move the rear tires and can hear the trans gears rocking as I rock the tires back and forth.

When in 4th or 5th gear, I can move the rear tires by hand with some effort...

What does this mean? I don't believe the clutch is disenaging - still - after pulling the T5, and checking every single peice for proper assembly. All parts are new and it's all installed right.

I don't seem to feel much pedal resistance...the only thing I have not done is bleed the brand new GM slave assembly.

Just trying to make sense of this all as I've just wasted alot of time removing/reinstalling the T5, only to have the same result....

I have not started the engine to test the clutch, just wanted to test it while the car is off the ground.

 

Have you checked to make sure that the throwout bearing is placed correctly in the fork? That would give you problems disengaging the clutch.

As far as whether you can turn the wheels or not with the clutch pedal on the floor, you should be able to, almost as if the car was in neutral.

Also, I'm guessing that as you try rotating the tires with the transmission in different gears, it gets easier and easier to do, until you can finally make them rotate (going from first through the gears to fifth).

 

I made 100% sure that the TOB is positioned correctly on the fork. That was the reason for pulling the T5 - just to make sure. The fork/TOB were correct from the get go...and still are.

I am stumped as to what it could be with every single clutch part being brand new and every single part was double checked for correct installation. How can a factory matched setup not work?

 

perhaps you put the disc in backwards, it's not hard to do, i've done it

 

I used a centerforce duel friction clutch with my T-5 and I had nothing but problems with it not wanting to release. Everything was installed and operating correctly it just took more travel then the slave cylinder was able to provide. I was able to get it to work by removing the spring loaded tabs from the fork that held the throughout bearing. The spring loaded tabs compressed and caused the fork to travel about 1/4 inch before the throughout bearing actually started pressing on the clutch causing it to release. Once I removed the spring loaded tabs any movement of the clutch fork caused the throughout bearing to press on the pressure plate and the clutch would disengage. This setup worked fine most of the time but at high RPM sometimes the clutch would still drag causing me to miss a shift. Eventually I switched to a custom built clutch from zoom that worked perfectly and solved the problem.

 

i had no problems whatso ever with my dual friction install.

 

I had a Centerforce DF in my previous '92 with no issues after the install. It worked perfectly.

I have yet to take my lazy azz to the garage and bleed the system...I'm in no hurry to find out that bleeding the new slave doesn't help either

 

As expected, bleeding the slave per the GM service manual did not help at all. I bled forward, reverse, and inside out

I am now calling Finish Line Performance (2 miles from home) to have them pull everything and see what they can figure out...I am tired of fighting this losing battle.

 

my aftermarket clutch did that finaly i had to make a longer slave actuator rod. i bottomed out the slave with the new rod put in on so that it was putting just a tiny bit of pressure on the fork at all times and it worked fine..still works to this day. ... its worth a try . seems like the slaves dont travel enough for some after market clutches.

 

I did that too for mine, but it doesn't solve the problem, just "bandaids" it. My problem was the clutch fork wasn't riding on the pivot ball correctly, the fork had come off it and was sticking out about 3/4" too far. Replaced a master and slave cylinder before finding that. Trans shifts perfectly now.

 

I have to agree that I think it is a problem with the fork/actuator part of the picture. It doesn't seem like it's working, just by looking at the assembly as the clutch pedal is depressed...There appears to be too much "play" in the fork as the pressure forces it to move...just looks "weak" as it moves against the clutch and takes up "slack". I would think it should be more positive and tight.

Can I "rig" something up to test the clutch to see if it will release with the proper fork movement? I was considering placing a small socket or similar between the fork indent and the actuator ball to see if I get disengagement...if I do get it to disengage with a "longer" throw, what does that mean??

Again, I say:

 

when i "rigged" mine i used a long bolt ground the top off and rounded it on both ends. fit perfect. just estimate how much you needed. but the only way i think you can do it is to bottom out the clutch slave since the slave will only travel about 3/4 an inch if the slave isnt bottomed out the long rod is still only moving the fork 3/4 inch.. unless its bottomed out. so what i did was took a peice of my rigged up rod and made it so that when i tightened the bolts to the slave i could only get it within an 1/8 of an inch to the bracket by hand without thightening the bolts down. meaning without the bolts being tight i couldnt actualy get it to touch the mounting bracket untill the were tightened. this was a last resort for me so i realy had nothing else to lose. but it worked and im still using it today problem less.

thx

 

Another question out of curiosity........The new, pre-bled GM slave/master assembly had a 2-3" long white plastic bracket "thingy" on the rod that connects to the clutch pedal, sort of "clipped" to the rod itself...It doesn't seem to stay in place after the pedal is depressed a few times. It also seems to serve no purpose...Is it a shipping thing like the straps on the actuator, or is it part of the rod assembly??

Once again:

 

Well, I spoke with Centerforce and FLP, both told me to check this and that, which I did. I also rigged an extention to the actuator to get more fork movement, with no luck.

So, I just removed the T5, bellhousing, clutch and flywheel from the car for inspection and I don't see anything that looks out of the ordinary. The TOB was on the fork correctly (again), the clutch disc was installed the right way and is not bent, the flywheel seems normal...it is a Hayes #10-530 30lb. billet steel flywheel.

This entire T5/clutch assembly has ZERO miles on it, but does not work as it should.

WTF

 

did your lengthened rod bottom out the slave if it didnt then it didnt change anything.you must have the slave piston pushed all the way in, with the rod in and not be able to touch the slave cyl to the bracket with only a 1/8 space in between. hope that makes sense. its a last resort thing. and trust me if it is a issue of not being enough slave travel this will let you know. hope i didnt confuse you maybee i should take mine out to measure it. also does your pedal feel week because mine did and when i "fixed" the rod it feels like it should.

thx

you are 100% sure the disc is in right.??

 

Yes - I am 100% sure the disc was installed right. The "flywheel side" sticker is still on the clutch disk and it really doesn't fit the other way.

I am having trouble understanding why I should need a longer actuator for a stock replacement setup...That does not seem normal to me, especially with a brand new GM hydraulic assembly. How am I to know exactly how much preload is required without going too far and having the clutch partially disengaged all the time?? Sounds like a recipe for trouble...I have about 450lb/ft of torque coming from my engine, so I need a safe system to release the clutch when shifting at 6,000RPM....

 

I think you can mess with the hydraulics from now until doomsday, and probably never fix it.

The one and only variable I see in your setup, compared to an otherwise identical setup that actually works, is the flywheel. Now I'm an idiot and all, but if I were working on it I believe I would zero in my mental effort on why this assmebly acts different, on the one thing out of the whole deal that is different.

Look real close at the flywheel bolt heads and see if there's any marks from the clutch disc hitting them.

Loosen the clutch bolts evenly, until they're loose enough that you can spin the disc in between the clutch and the flywheel. Put your alignment tool in it and spin it. Very slowly tighten the clutch bolts EVENLY until the clutch just starts grabbing the disc. What's grabbing? WHat's the disc rubbing on? Are there any gaps anywhere? Look especially between the flywheel side of the disc and the flywheel itself.

If nothing seems obvious, lay the flywheel on something that supports it by the crank flange, next to a stock one supported the same way; measure how far from the crank flange surface the clutch surface is on them, and compare.

In other words, use some logic, not voodoo. There's something wrong somewhere, and it isn't in the parts that work perfectly in everybody else's car.

Don't go off inventing esoteric explanations that involve space aliens, fairy dust, phases of the moon, magic manufacturing defects, or other mysterious mystical influences. There's nothing about any of those parts that's so unique that it is beyond mortal understanding and tracking down by a person of anywhere near average intelligence. (or even me) This is just a car, it isn't anything that requires any of that. It's just pieces of metal and stuff. You can see it all, measure it with nothing more complex than a ruler, feel it, you can even drop it on your foot if you want to. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Remember these famous words to troubleshoot by:

"The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is usually the right one."
— Occam, ancient Greek philosopher, from the days when manual transmissions used belts and the "planetary system"

 

I took your advice before you even provided it I was checking the flywheel bolt to clutch disc clearance yesterday for that very same reason.

I spoke with Hays tech department today and the guy plainly said that their flywheel will not work with the Centerforce DF clutch system. He commented on the DF's inherent problems with disengagement. Yesterday, Centerforce commented on Hays inherent problem with tolerences.

I had a DF on my previous Camaro, but with the stock flywheel...no problem there.

So, I now have a choice - replace the flywheel with a matching Centerforce or replace the clutch with a matching Hays. Which would you choose, given that I have already experienced the disengagement problem and would rather have a proven-to-release setup...

 

Yet, the CF stuff works perfectly with stock parts, CF's flywheels, all stock replacement flywheels, etc. etc.

So why does the Hays guy blame your CF clutch for creating your disengagement problem?

I hate it when mfrs do that. Hays just lost an enormous number of brownie points in my book. I hope somebody from Mr Gasket is watching this site, and sees this BS. There's just no excuse for that. Now if the guy had said "our FW is a special size and requires our clutch to work right", that would at least have been honest, even if it sucked; but he just plain lied, and instead, bashed something that there's nothing wrong with.

I believe I would get a different flwheel, made to stock dimensions; CF or otherwise. Otherwise, you'll end up stuck with some kind of a one-off setup that whenever you have to replace something, you're going to be right back in the same hell you've been in for the last couple of days. I have a CF flywheel by the way, and it's an excellent quality piece, as far as that goes; and duplicates stock dimensions, so everything fits right, which is a good thing. But I would think that you could use anybody's that was compatible with stock stuff.

 

I'm using stock flywheel with CF duel friction. No problems what so ever.
I'd **** on Hayes and get a new flywheel like RB said.

 

nice to know a mfgr makes stuff that wont work with other aftremarkt stuff then in return blames it on the guys who make stuff interchangeable. what do they care tho they didnt spend hours of there time wrenching on it trying to figure out your problem. they should have just stamped only intechangeable with x brand on the side in a big letters. that way they could have saved you some time. lol

glad to hear you have fixed it the right way rather than the poor boy "GHETTO" way

 

There is now an "installation note" on the Summit Racing page for the Hays 10-530 flywheel that says, "Stock 5 and 6 spring clutch discs will not clear the flywheel bolts". I guess they should add "Centerforce Dual Friction" to the list of incompatible, but correctly sized clutches. WTF is that? They are aware of the incompatibility, but make no attempt to help future buyers avoid hours of needless labor??

I asked Summit Racing (who is also aware of the issue - the sales Guy said they distributed an internal "technical bulletin" about it), why don't they put a note that also flags potential Centerforce clutch owners about the incompatibility? That went no where...They won't credit me for the incompatible $230 Hays flywheel either, as I am past 90 days...oh well.

I'm just glad that I think I found the problem. I have ordered the Centerforce 700170 flywheel and new ARP bolts just to make sure!

To Hays -

 

You should have just spent the extra bucks and bought the centerforce flywheel. After all, it would have been a matched set of everything. Been a better way to go instead of using 2 different manufactures parts. IMO

 

At first I thought you might be talking about a neutral safety switch. RB83L69 and I had a discussion on this in another thread; not sure what years they used the older style and when they used the newer, just that I have personally pulled 85 TA pedals and they had the same pedals as a 92. But that's not it...

In the upper part of the master cyl. pushrod there is usually a plastic bushing.

Other than that, there's nothing else functional up top.

As to your "can be turned in 4th & 5th - totally normal. Mechanical leverage that the tyres have on the engine is greatest in 5th, least in 1st.

You may be wasting your time & $ on the new flywheel. Centreforce was created by the same guy who started Hays. I will find it very curious if that does solve your issue.

I've seen Centreforce clutches in a couple 91ish f-bodies and they just had stock flywheels. From the right dealer, I think a stock flywheel (light or heavy style) is less than a Hays.

Either way, measure what you find to be the differences in all the parts you deal with please.

What would be possibly helpful would be an adjustable height fork pivot ball. BUT, that doesn't fit the 84-92 V8 F-body bellhousing. It does fit the Lakewood bell that fits the 84-92s though. What you could also do is get a bolt the same thread as the 84-92 ballstud. Modify the bolt head so it can be used "as the ballstud" threaded into the bellhousing. Then drill & tap it in the middle so a 7/16-20 bolt threads into it. That would let you use the stud part of the Lakewood adjustable ballstud w/ out dropping 300$ to do it.

 

I received and installed the correct Centerforce flywheel and...It still doesn't disengage!!

I am using a steel T5 mainshaft for an alignment tool, and have the flywheel, clutch, and bellhousing all bolted up. I then assembled the slave to the bellhousing and had someone push the clutch while I tried to turn the main shaft that is insterted in the clutch disk. No go. I pulled the mainshaft out enough to make sure it wasn't the pilot bearing causing the issue. The clutch disk will not spin when the pedal is fully depressed, but I can see the TOB pressing the clutch fingers and they move inward as they should...perhaps not enough.

I then measured the slave actuator rod travel and found that I am only getting 3/8", far shorter than the minimum 1/2" ++ that is required. So, now I am looking at the best way to create more actuator rod travel...This is really crazy for a normal T5/clutch setup, isn't it

I have 2 stock GM ball studs and one Mr Gasket/Lakewood adjustable pivot ball available for use...I have been trying to figure out how to use your "bolt" method to create a longer pivot ball stud...I actually had the Mr Gasket ball stud in the bellhousing originally, but it doesn't screw in correctly (threads are too small)...and doesn't give enough travel anyway.

If my slave only moves 3/8", should I simply be looking for a replacement slave that moves the required 1/2" or more?? I'd like to fix this thing the right way...can the slave be disassembled to install a longer actuator rod?

 

A stock slave cylinder should give you somewhere around 5/8" travel. Are you sure there isn't any air in the system? You might want to try bleeding it (be sure to have the bellhousing bolted up and the rod installed first). Is there any excessive freeplay in the pedal, or does it otherwise feel light/spongy/strange?

-B

 

I bled the system previously, but will try again...The pedal feels good with no play anywhere...The master input rod from the pedal moves about 1" and looks to be working like it should...I am focusing on the slave actuator not traveling enough.

 

all this was my problem as well. i just lengthened the rod and havent touched it since. its like a 5 minute deal.

thanks

 

The ball stud is your problem, I had to put a lakewood one in my vette to get it to shift properly, it moved the fork forward to get the geometry correct. Out of curiosity are you putting the base of the lakewood set up in the bellhousing first or trying to thread the actual stud into it? Would not be suprised if the F-body one is metric.

 

How exactly did you go about lengthening the actuator rod? Can the rubber cover on the slave be removed and is the rod just sitting there? How did you install the rod? Confused...

The threads on the Lakewood adjustable pivot ball are too small and don't fit the threads in the stock bellhousing...Only the stock non-adjustable pivot ball fits the stock bellhousing...I was able to install the Lakewood ball partially, but not enough to make a difference, even with the stud fully extended. It would be great to have a stock threaded adjustable ball stud to fit the stock bellhousing.

I would have no problem spending the cash to get the Lakewood bellhousing to use the adjustable ball, but it would have to be guaranteed to fix my problem.

 

when i lengthened the rod i pushed the rod all the way in the slave as far as it would go. then i measured from the dip in the fork to the rod while it was pushed in. then made a piece of rod 1/8 of an inch longer than that. and it worked fine.it puts a little pressure on the fork but not enough to move it. with the slave removed the rod pulls right out of the boot and the boot pulls right off as well. it worked great for me so it might be worth a try.

 

This doesn't fix your problem but quite a while ago I installed several clutches in a Ford truck my brother owned due slave *cylinder* problems, and a couple in front wheel drive Cavalier my cousins daughter couldn't drive worth a darn. I learned, read, or was told, that the plastic straps were to keep pressure on the rod until it was installed. Upon applying the clutch they break, as you've noticed, AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you remove them or apply the clutch without them being installed BECAUSE it can OVER EXTEND the piston and damage the slave *cylinder*.

Just my .03 cents worth. Hope you get it fixed. BTW I lenghtened a the rods on both of those and I believe it was because the flywheel was turned. Man, I miss a simple adjustable clutch linkage!

HTH

 

I have not gone out to the garage to mess with it again, but will be focusing on the slave...I'll try a lengthy gravity bleed, then check the slave actuator rod travel. If not up to spec, then I'll change the slave for an aluminum one, assuming I can find one.

The saga continues...

 

Find a bolt that has the thread of the stock ballstud. I dunno what that is on an 84-92 bellhousing.

thread it into the bellhousing.

cut the head down so it will fit flush with the bellhousing

add some way of threading it in and out of the bellhousing for later. Straight bit screwdriver might just work.

Drill a hole dead centre in the other side and tap it for 7/16-20 threads (I'm 99% sure that's what the Lakewood ballstud uses)

Trim length to suit your application.

Use the lakewood stud and jamnut. Done.

doesn't matter; you need travel, not a longer initial contact point.

 

You need to find out why you are only getting 3/8" travel at your slave cylinder. 3/8" is simply not enough travel to fully disengage the clutch. You absolutely have to find and fix the cause of the short slave cylinder travel before making any other changes to your linkage.

-Bob

 

I gravity bled the system again, plus reverse bled per the GM service manual, with the same end result...no clutch release.

Can anyone else offer another possible suggestion on the problem? I have pintpointed the most likely issue being that the slave actuator only moves 3/8". I inspected the clutch pedal input rod and it moves at least one solid inch of travel when the pedal is fully depressed. The rod moves straight and does not bind. I was starting to think that perhaps I somehow mis-mounted the clutch master cylinder as this was an auto-to-manual swap. It doesn't look like that is the case. Everything bolted up correctly.

There is about 1/8-1/4" of "play" at the very top of the pedal height, you can wiggle the pedal up & down when it is at the very top of its travel, but once depressed 1/4" or so, it pushes steady and smooth all the way to the floor, with low-medium pedal effort. The pedal movement is stopped by the little "plate" with a rubber pad on it, mounted to the pedal assembly...Normal, correct? I am using a clutch/brake pedal assembly from a 4th gen, if that matters.

I am getting depressed that I can't even move my car with all of the mods I've done...this is very sad as mid-summer has already passed

Please help!

 

 

hmm. I've never investigaged for myself but have seen a few people mention third & fourth gen pedal assy's being lightly different in the travel. Something to look at. The travel of the pedal sounds right to me though.

I can't picture the rubber pad / stopper right now.

Is the master cylinder pushrod bushed properly upon the pedal stud? I.E. is there any slop there?

I am a fan of pressure bleeding, not gravity.

 

Here comes the $64,000 question - has this car ever run with this setup, or are you just completing the auto-to-manual swap now?

-Bob

 

And, this being an auto-to-manual swap: did you use the 2 little metal braces (made out of round rod with the ends flattened) that connect the ends of the pivot bolt to the master cyl U-bolt?

 

The auto-to-manual swap has been completed, but the car has NOT moved since I pulled the auto trans...the clutch has NEVER released since the swap, engine running or not.

Please elaborate on: "the 2 little metal braces (made out of round rod with the ends flattened) that connect the ends of the pivot bolt to the master cyl U-bolt?"

What "pivot" bolt? There is nothing attached to the u-bolt that pivots.

I used 4th gen pedals, which had an accelerator pedal brace attached up by the 4 brake booster bolts, but I had it cut off since I left my stock accelerator pedal in place...there is a "half moon" type of metal brace that the master cylinder u-bolt goes through, then the 2 bolts go on to tighten the master...this "half-moon" brace is welded to the clutch/brake pedal assembly. I used the brace as a template to drill the master cylinder holes in the firewall, marking the holes after I placed the pedal assembly in its mounted poisition.

On the pedal side, the master rod is connected to the pedal "post" and the plastic bushing was installed...

Am I missing something?

 

If you used 4th gen pedals, that may be part of your problem. I don't know because I've never tried. But I do know that in my 83 car, I put the hydraulics in it back in about 86 or 87 because I got so sick of the sticking, binding, sqeeeeking, POS mecahnical linkage that was just like all the 4-speed cars I'd ever had and hated that about; and I've never had any trouble AT ALL with clutch disengagement. I'm still using the 3rd gen pedals with a set of 4th gen hydraulics and a T-56, works great.

I don't know how to describe it any more plainly. The 3rd gen pedal assembly has a pedal pivot bolt, that's about 6" long, goes through both the brake and clutch pedals and holds them in the bracket. There's plastic bushings in there. There are 2 braces, 1 at each end of that bolt, that go from the ends of the bolt, to the U-bolt that holds the clutch MC to the firewall. If those braces aren't there, then there is enough force on the MC, to literally punch it right out of the firewall; in fact that has happened to some people who improperly installed it. Even if it doesn't break it out of the firewall, it will cause the firewall to flex MASSIVELY, such that a significant portion of the motion that's supposed to appear between the rod and the MC, will instead be consumed in bending the firewall and moving the MC around; and of course then there won't be enough fluid pushed down the line to move the slave like it should.

I'd strongly suggest that you go to the junkyard and get a COMPLETE 3rd gen pedal assembly, including the 2 metal braces; and correctly assemble the car. Sounds like that's the root cause of your malfunction. You can .... hmmm, how can I be politically correct and still say this ..... "alternatively engineer" your clutch as much as you want and maybe it will work or maybe it won't, and maybe it will stay working and maybe it won't; or you can just do it right and be done with it for all time.

 

I kinda skimmed through all of the posts but has anyone ever tried adjusting the fork bolt on the trany? Im not sure what the actual name of it is but it is what the clutch fork pivits on. I had problems diengaging my clutch when I put in a new one and it was the fault of that bolt being out to much. The clutch pedel felt fine but the clutch would not disengage. Just my 2 cents. Oh I belive its a troks bolt on my 89 formula.

 

I went into detail on that already.

 

Sorry

 

The thing of it is that the third gen ball studs aren't adjustable, they're either in all the way, which is where they belong, or they're not.

At any rate, an adjustable ball stud won't cure lack of travel, which is what "60504" is dealing with. Changing the actual pivot point could work, but that's well beyond the scope of what's going on here.

-B

 

I now understand the braces you are referring to. The 4th gen pedals have a different bracing system, but it appears to do the same job. The exact geometry may be off just enough, however, to cause the problem I am experiencing. Using your "keep it simple" motto, the pedal assembly is the only thing that is not native to a 92 Camaro.

So, rather than take the chance of never getting this fixed, I am going to replace the 4th gen pedals with 3rd gen pedals/braces, and just for good measure, I'll replace the master/slave assembly with (another) new pred-bled unit...Not taking any chances at this point.

I really appreciate all of the support and suggestions...we'll get this thing figured out

 

Here is something you might consider trying why trying to locate third gen pedals.

When you depress the clutch pedal is it going all the way to the floor/firewall? If so you might be out of travel with the 4th gen pedals.

A solution would be to cut the master cylinder rod and thread a coupler and jam nuts so you could make it adjustable/longer. This would solve the problem of not enough pedal travel.

credit for pic : Tony89GTA

 

FYI. I don't know if you already looked into this or not. But - I was looking at the GMPP Catalog yesterday and I noticed that they has 2 different "clutch fork pivot ball" of what ever it's called. One was a little longer than the other, and they were both for a SBC bellhousing. I don't have the part numbers or lengths on me right now but I can get them for you tomorrow if you would like.

 

I would be interested in those part numbers...anything will help.

I did just score a pedal assembly from a '91 Bird, complete with braces and the master/slave still attached. We'll see how that works.