lynns59

That is correct. When this whole thing started I extended the arm on the fork side in an attempt to get the rod more in line with the arm instead of angled down so much. Jeff and Dennis both said that was the wrong way so I moved it back up which did help with pushing the pedal in. It was still pretty firm but not too stiff. But, you don't have good control over it when you let out on the pedal and the clutch engages all at once. There is nothing gradual about it. So, I thought if I went with a hydraulic setup the linkage problem would be taken care of. Wrong!!! I can't move the top rod to where it needs to be to achieve the full 6:1 but I can get a 4:1 ratio which is better than what it was which was about 1:1. One more question I have regarding the top arm on the Z bar. What happens if you move the linkage up on it? Will you get more leverage or does the same apply for it as the bottom arm? Just curious. I noticed that the kits from Keisler come with a hydraulic setup. Where do they recommend installing the master cylinder?

CrCrzy

When I said I thought I had it backwards, I was refering to the lower part of the Z-bar (the side closer to the engine). I originally said to make a bolt on extension that would lower the rod that actuates the clutch fork. After I wrote that I thought about it some more and realized that lowering the rod that actuates the clutch fork would make the clutch pedal harder to push.

Instead, I would remove the Z-bar and drill a hole above the one that currently exists on the low lever of the Z-bar. I believe placing the clutch rod closer to the point of rotation would give you more leverage and slow down the clutch actuation. Think "Fast" clutch position versus the "Slow" clutch position. I tried to find my Dynamics book to help prove this but haven't been able to locate it. I don't want to give you wrong information that would result in unnecessary work. But if you aren't opposed to drilling a hole in your Z-bar I think this might be the solution you are looking for. Hopefully this helps.

lynns59

Yeah, Jeff and Dennis both suggested to move the lower Z bar to fork linkage closer to the tube of the Z bar and not further away which I did at the beginning. But, progress has been made. Moved the pedal to Z bar linkage closer to the pedal pivot as much as possible and made a completely new Z bar. Pedal ratio is about 4:1 now. The Z bar tube is a little longer which put the lower linkage perfectly inline (right to left) with the fork end. Also, dropped the engine/transmission side pivot down a little more, not the distance between linkage and tube but the pivot ball. This took more of the angle out. Haven't had a chance to drive it yet because I had to paint some stuff Saturday evening and didn't mess with it yesterday, but sitting in the car pushing the pedal it's easier to push and you also have control letting out on the pedal. It's still a pretty firm pedal, not too stiff, but so was the original setup with the Muncie. Driving it will tell the tale but it's looking good. I'll post an update when i have one.

lynns59

Well finally, the clutch is sorted out. Finally got to drive it and it's good. The quickness letting out on the pedal is gone. Now it's smooth and you can actually drive the thing. It's not like before where you let out on the pedal the clutch engaged all at once. It feels normal now. Pedal stiffness is what it was with the clutch, pressure plate, and Muncie I had to start with before the T5 swap which is fine. Evidently the key was the pedal ratio which oddly enough nobody here mentioned being a problem for them. I'm sure the new, longer Z bar and lowering just a little didn't hurt either. So, anyone who's thinking about doing a T5 swap in a C1 will probably need to address the pedal ratio issue as well as the other. Is the T5 swap worth it? Yes, I believe so but hopefully others will have better luck. It helps to start off with a transmission that's good and not one with bad gears. Hopefully this thread will help others do this and avoid some of the aggravation.

Stewart Allison

I cringe and hope you have fixed the T5 every time I see the thread pop back up ! Stewy

Old Nash

Is the T5 Tremec from 99 Mustang the same dimension wise(input shaft,etc) as the earlier years(92-95). Looking to put in C2.

Tom Austin

Man4Chevy,

There are lots of threads about putting a T5 in a C2. I have one that I plan to put in my '66 over the winter (I hope). You're better off getting a Chevy T5 - out of a Camaro/Firebird. Try this thread - it will get you started . . .

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c1-a...ll-w-pics.html

Good Luck!

Tom

Old Nash

The reason I am looking at the t5 from mustang is I found a Tremec WC from 99 GT with 40K. I can't find a GM t5 that is in good shape or needs rebuild. All those cars are getting crushed and parts from them hard to find in my area. I read a lot of the posts about this but most use mustang 80'sto early 92 or 94/95 t5. Thanks

Old Nash

I found a WC t5 from 89 Camaro and it arrived yesterday, also purchased a bellhousing. I need the 26 spline clutch before starting.

Stewart Allison

Good luck with your trans operation ! Stewy

Old Nash

Thanks. The car is 3 speed now with 4:11 gear and maybe with the overdrive I will want to get it out. Its been quite awhile since I have driven it.

John S 1961

to the top for this great thread

wmf62

this is what causes the high pedal pressure using mechanical linkage with the hydraulic bellhousing. if you look at the pivot ball placement in the regular bellhousing as opposed to the hydraulic bellhousing; the hydraulic cylinder offers more leverage than the mechanical z-bar will and therefore allows the pivot point of the hydraulic fork to be farther away from the inner end.

regular


hydraulic


Bill

John S 1961

how did your c1 5 speed project turn out?
I would like to do this as the engine will need to come out this winter

ryan22

Can someone please confirm the part/casting # for the correct 78-82 Camaro bellhousing - 14037657 ?

I thought this was correct but found one for sale and seller says he does not believe this is compatible with a T5.

Thanks-

Scott Marzahl

To be clear do you want the t5 bell for a t5 camaro/firebird, if so, you want a 14060627 mechanical rotated bellhousing.

ryan22

Forum member Dgsmith wrote "The only T5 bell housing that will work with a mechanical clutch is the '83 Z28/Firebird 5 sp. car, after that they are all hydraulic. The 83 housing will tilt the trans. 17 deg. and may present clearance issues as the shifter will come out to the driver's side of the hump. I used a late ('78-82) 4 sp aluminum mechanical bell housing, which accepted the trans. without tilting it. The shifter is located near the original C1."

This 78-82 bell housing is the one I'm looking for the part/casting # for.

Thanks-

Scott Marzahl

Well i dont agree with the above statement at all because the main reason for hunting down a rare 83 t5 camaro bellhousing is to locate the shifter in the correct location, see post #94.

Tom Austin

I am in complete agreement with Scott . . . see post #94 for sure!

ryan22

Scott & Tom- Thanks for your replies. Glad to learn that. I'm collecting parts now to do this T5 swap. I may start a new thread just about that- parts needed- trying to be well prepared so once the project is started it can be completed smoothly and within a short time frame.

I'm leaning towards doing it how Paul Cangialosi (www.5speeds.com) suggests; with a GM maincase (due to not needing an adapter plate) & a Ford tailshaft due to the shifter location being further forward-really don't wanna butcher the floor if avoidable.

Thanks again !