The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop hydraulic throwout bearing

guys! does anyone make a hydraulic throwout bearing setup for a 235? or has anyone built one? thanks

I came across this when I was searching for Jeep fittings. It's for Chevy V8 bellhousings but maybe you could jerryrig something with their kit.

Hydraulic Clutch Slave Cylinder Retrofit for Chevrolet Bellhousings

This is just a hydraulic linkage solution. It still uses the conventional throwout bearing.

the reason i was asking was to freeup some space for brake upgrade. thanks

How about a right hand drive bell housing and an external slave cylinder?
This assuming the right hand drive has a right side clutch throwout fork opening in the bell housing? I know some other cars switched sides for ths when right hand drive. Did Chevy?

Grigg

60-61 V8 truck bellhousings had the right hand hydraulic fork, did the 235s?

mmm! have to check the old 60' i have in the back of the property it has a 235 in it. thanks!

I converted to a T-5 transmission on my 235 and have a hydraulic T.O. bearing from Summit Racing. I believe it is a Howe. I can't see why this wouldn't fit on a 235 with an SM420 transmission. I can send pics if you'd like.

I would try to find a way to make it work without a hydraulic throwout bearing.

Unless you enjoy removing the drive shaft and transmission to replace a leaky cylinder. And if you have a torque tube rear axle it is even more fun, as the rear axle or springs have to be unbolted to allow the transmission to be removed.

Who ever though of a hydraulic throwout bearing should be forced to replace every single one that ever failed.

Grigg has the same opinion as I. I can't understand why they ever came up with such a stupid idea. Simple linkage worked for close to 100 years, what more could you want. I have had nothing but grief with the hydraulic clutch actuation systems. Usually when a manufacturer makes a change, it is because it (usually) is cheaper, or sometimes is better. This system is more costly and certainly is not nearly as trouble free as before. If there is any way possible, make the linkage work.

And if you can't do it with linkage, use an external slave cylinder.

My '53 has the old torque tube/propeller shaft setup and I didn't loosen the rearend to get the tranny out. There is a sleeve on the front of the drive shaft that you can pull back to expose the U joint. I took the U joint apart and pulled out the transmission.

1953 Panel,
That's good to know. I have only worked on 1 ton and up AD Chevy's. But my experience with other torque tube rears include Model A, B, and V8 fords, and a 38 Buick. They all required removing more than you want to to get the transmission out. I always thought Chevy's were slightly easier to work on in general, this being another example.

I am still of the opinion that there is no good excuse for using a hydraulic throwout bearing.
Grigg

I've got a 235/261 bellhousing from a '62 suburban in my garage. It has a slave cylinder on the outside, on the right.

I've got a Howe TOB on my t-5 behind a 261. No reason you couldn't do the same thing with a sm-420 and a 235. However, it would be easier to repair 3-5 years down the road when the TOB fails if you used a standard TOB and slave cylinder. The larger truck belhousings came set up for that. If you've got the stock sm-420 and closed driveline, by the time the hydraulic TOB fails you'll be ready to upgrade to a t-5 or it'll be time to change the clutch plate.

Instead of using a Howe TOB from speedway or whatever, you might consider using the Jeep Cherokee hydrulic TOBs- They cost around $70 from autozone. Then you'd need a mastercylinder and someway to mount it. I mounted mine next to the brake booster and hooked it up to the original pedal. Next time I do it, I'll use the jeep TOB/MC if the id of the TOB is the same as the OC of the tranny input shaft housing.

I understand your problem though, the reason I went with the hydraulic TOB is that with a power brake booster in the stock M/C location you can't use the mechanical linkage.

Have you considered hydrovac brakes rather than the booster/m-c set up? The larger trucks came with power brakes that used a hydrovac unit bolted to the frame under the passanger side of the cab so it wouldn't interfer with the clutch linkage.

The external slave cylinder bellhousings moved the linkage to the passenger side to avoid that problem.

Maybe 4onthefloor will sell or trade you the bellhousing he's got! Then all you'll have to figure out is the clutch mastercylinder, which pretty easy. Wilwood makes one and all you've got to do is build the mount.

My 98 Ranger 2.5 has 222 thousand miles on it with the same hydraulic TO bearing, one of the guys that works at the shop has a 94 2.3 with 336K miles and Big G Auto Parts in Princeton, Texas has a 98 Ranger 2.5 parts delivery truck with over 400K on it with the same bearing. I guess if changing one out every 300 thousand miles or so bugs you then you shouldn't use one.

Should have said the 94 has a slave cylinder and using it as a comparison.

NM51, why did you select the T-5? I want to get more gears for my '73 C-30 and '51 4400, but I've been thinking of the AX15 instead of the T-5. I realize that the AX15 is only a medium duty transmission, but I'm not planning on doing any max load max effort hauling.