Topic: 1968 S-Code Clutch Lever Problem

[Bob Gaines]

My car did not have the clip-style.  Bell housing has the original pivot point with the wire-type retainer.  So far, all major drivetrain parts have proven out to be original to the car.  Accessories were another story but expected after 50+ years.

v/r
Tony

Do you realize that the information you posted in your latest post #29 contradicts the statements you made in reply #27? If the bellhousing is original to your car and it has the wire clip type pivot point then the fork that was original to your car will have that same wire clip which is the one on the top in my picture. The fork on the bottom came with the tongue type clip from the factory . Even if you modify the later 68-70 bottom fork to accept the wire clip the visible end portion has a quite different incorrect appearance . That is if historical accuracy is important. Just wanted you to be aware just in case you were confused about the differences between the two.

[TonyH]

Do you realize that the information you posted in your latest post #29 contradicts the statements you made in reply #27? If the bellhousing is original to your car and it has the wire clip type pivot point then the fork that was original to your car will have that same wire clip which is the one on the top in my picture. The fork on the bottom came with the tongue type clip from the factory . Even if you modify the later 68-70 bottom fork to accept the wire clip the visible end portion has a quite different incorrect appearance . That is if historical accuracy is important. Just wanted you to be aware just in case you were confused about the differences between the two.

I might have misunderstood your picture Bob. 

I'm confident that my car does have the original bell housing and has the original wire-type pivot point.  I believe I have the original clutch fork as well which has the wire retainer.  If I'm understanding everything I've seen to date, there is and early 67 version with a wire-type retainer (top of your picture picture), a late 67 to early 68 version that also has a wire type retainer but a different end similar to the 68/69 version (what I have pictured below), and the 68/69 version which transitioned to the clip-type retainer (bottom of your picture).

Didn't have time to cross reference the part numbers this morning but I'd pulled three different numbers previously that appeared to support the above.

v/r
Tony

[Bob Gaines]

I might have misunderstood your picture Bob. 

I'm confident that my car does have the original bell housing and has the original wire-type pivot point.  I believe I have the original clutch fork as well which has the wire retainer.  If I'm understanding everything I've seen to date, there is and early 67 version with a wire-type retainer (top of your picture picture), a late 67 to early 68 version that also has a wire type retainer but a different end similar to the 68/69 version (what I have pictured below), and the 68/69 version which transitioned to the clip-type retainer (bottom of your picture).

Didn't have time to cross reference the part numbers this morning but I'd pulled three different numbers previously that appeared to support the above.

v/r
Tony

OK given the wire type bellhousing is original to your car then the clutch fork should also be the wire type . I have only ever seen the fork type in the picture you posted with the tongue style clip.Yours does not appear to be modified.  The one on the bottom in my picture typically has the tongue type clip. It has a C8 engineering number. That is also however only as it relate to the bigger throwout bearing used on the Shelby's and Cobrajet Mustangs. I don't have a extensive knowledge of S code 390's that take the smaller throw out bearing. I have not had a reason to research the 390 forks . There are only the two types for the large bearing forks. If you looked up in the MPC and it showed 3 different forks for the 390 it may be 1 top one in my picture C7 fork that has wire clip,2 superceded C8 fork like your recent picture with wire clip and 3 C8 fork with tongue style clip which is my bottom picture. In this case all are smaller bearing 390 forks. It appears that you are fortunate to have the correct fork for your early 390 S code. Thank you for helping me learn something new today.

[Coralsnake]

In 1968 both styles were used, the clip and the spring retainers from what I have seen.

[Bob Gaines]

In 1968 both styles were used, the clip and the spring retainers from what I have seen.

If speaking about the 390 yes but if referring to 428 start a new thread so the discussion does not get confusing.

[J_Speegle]

Didn't have time to cross reference the part numbers this morning but I'd pulled three different numbers previously that appeared to support the above.

Were you using a later MPC for the numbers? If so that would indicate what would work not what in many cases was original

[TonyH]

I'm not at home right now so no access to my notes.  I'll post a follow-up with what I came up with when I get back in town.

v/r
Tony

[TonyH]

Never could get the RAM clutch to work right.  Even with the shaved bolts, it really didn't have any adjustment and I was not confident that the TOB was not riding the PP fingers.  Ended up scrapping it and ordering a Centerforce Dual Friction (DF226033).  Went straight in with no fitment issues.  Also has to be one of the best clutches I've owned as far as feel and function.  Thanks all for the recommendations!

v/r
Tony

[mtinkham]

So there was no interference with cast iron bellhousing as stated on the Centerforce website?

[TonyH]

So there was no interference with cast iron bellhousing as stated on the Centerforce website?

Absolutely no contact.  It looks close, maybe 1/8" of clearance.

v/r
Tony