Topic: 1968 S-Code Clutch Lever Problem

[TonyH]

I've also moved on from Long and B&B style to Centerforce clutches.

I have a pic of the 67 S-code lever if interested.

Would love to see the 67 lever if you have a picture.  Have not been able to find one.

My car has a build date of 2/68 but the motor and trans have Dec 67 stampings on all of the parts indicating it was put together at that time.  The bellhousing is correct for the car so it originally had the spring versus the clip on the pivot point.

I had contemplated the Centerforce clutch but saw some manufacturer's notes tat stated the PP may contact the bell housing so did not want to risk it.

v/r
Tony

[TonyH]

Tony:
Is your imput shaft 1 1/16 or 1 3/8? It looks as if the Throw out bearing is oval, not round. Your imput shaft may be making contact with the sleeve.
Take the T/O off the fork and slide it on the front bearing retainer and see if it makes any contact.  The opening in the T/O bearing should be perfectly round.

Input shaft is 1 1/16.  In the photo, the bearing appears oval, probably because of the angle.  It's definitely round.

The contact was between the finger bolts on the pressure plate and the lever, along the ridge opposite the pivot point.

v/r
Tony

[TonyH]

Just assembled mine last night.I have a 427 but its the same set up...I have never seen this issue before.
Its hard for me to tell but it looks like you have the clip in the clutch fork backwards..The clip has a off set and it should be offset to the bearing.The tab to clip it in is forward of the pivot point..If installed wrong it will pull the fork inwards...Not saying that's the problem..
That is the same fork as the one I have in my 68...
You didn't have to buy a new flywheel (not saying its a bad thing)The ring gear can be easily pulled off and rotated or turned around.Engine always stops in the same place..
I have no experience with Ram clutches..I use Mcleod..

Just found out about the flywheel stopping in the same place when this came up a couple weeks ago.  That was a new one on me but make sense when you think about it.  Wasn't comfortable not  changing the flywheel because it had two consecutive teeth missing.  Thought starter gear would spin in the gap causing more teeth to break.

[1967FEGT]

I was viewing from my cell being I was in Charlotte and for some reason the pictures wouldn't open up. The spring clip you have is more common to 1967. Remember, production for the 68 model year usually starts around August of 1967.  There very well may be carry-over parts. I posted pictures of both 67 and 68  levers on the previous page.  Yes, teeth missing will destroy a stater bendix.

[Bossbill]

Here is a 67 S-code clutch fork. It's the one on top.
The MPC incorrectly lists this arm for the 390GT and 289K, which is how I ended up with it.

[427Fastback]

I will look tomorrow...I have a box full of forks...Couldn't give me a center force clutch..I realize this is a concours forum and I respect that but I pull the crap bushings out of the pedal supports and replace them with SKF bearings.I also fix up the linkage and assorted parts..I am not a big guy and clutch pedal effort is a concern...I have owned my 68 since 1977 and have put almost 100,000 miles on it...I have never had a linkage failure..JMO.....Cory

[1967FEGT]

Here is a 67 S-code clutch fork. It's the one on top.
The MPC incorrectly lists this arm for the 390GT and 289K, which is how I ended up with it.

None of those levers are for a 390 mustang.

[1967FEGT]

I will look tomorrow...I have a box full of forks...Couldn't give me a center force clutch..I realize this is a concours forum and I respect that but I pull the crap bushings out of the pedal supports and replace them with SKF bearings.I also fix up the linkage and assorted parts..I am not a big guy and clutch pedal effort is a concern...I have owned my 68 since 1977 and have put almost 100,000 miles on it...I have never had a linkage failure..JMO.....Cory

The dual friction units are nice and the pedal pressure is light.  I had Mustang Steve install his roller bearing pedal. It makes a HUGE difference over the nylon bushing Ford design. 

[TonyH]

Looks like I had the correct clutch lever all along.  Apparently this is a known issue for the BB cars.  Got this response from the RAM rep:

Antonio - those are the correct bolts, but in the BB apps the lever clearance is tighter than most SB apps.  Two options, or a combo, you can try first removing the star washers under the bolts and see if this gives you adequate clearance, if not we have a shaved bolt we can send you to install.

If you choose to do this, make sure you hold up on the lever when you pull the bolt out, as there are shims underneath between the cover and the yoke that holds the lever in place.  A drop of Loctite on the bolts will retain them fine.

If you would like the shorter bolts, send me your shipping info and I'll have them sent out.

Thanks everyone for your help.  I really appreciate your time/input.

v/r
Tony

[Bossbill]

None of those levers are for a 390 mustang.

Start another thread and show us the right one.

The top lever was from a very reputable Mustang parts vendor.
 [on edit]

I looked up the 390 (again) in the Chassis Assy manual and it does look like the 390 takes a fork with a hole in it.
So it appears that not only did I spend a lot of money on a fork that is not a 289K fork (it's 12" long!), it is not a 67 390 either. It does get tiresome being hosed by vendors.

[1967FEGT]

Bill, I posted a picture in this thread. The only difference between the 67 and 68 390 lever is the spring clip that is rivited to the lever Vs. the anti-rattle wire clip rentention.
It has a hole at the end that has a rounded pivot that sits in the end of the stamped hole. You'll note the holes on the sides of the lever. That means the reproduction could be converted to use the 1967 anti-rattle clip by drilling out the rivets on the clip.

[Bob Gaines]

Bill, I posted a picture in this thread. The only difference between the 67 and 68 390 lever is the spring clip that is rivited to the lever Vs. the anti-rattle wire clip rentention.
It has a hole at the end that has a rounded pivot that sits in the end of the stamped hole. You'll note the holes on the sides of the lever. That means the reproduction could be converted to use the 1967 anti-rattle clip by drilling out the rivets on the clip.

There is more of a difference in the 390 67 to early 68 clutch fork and the 68 up clutch fork then just the clips . The highly visible end that sticks out of the bellhousing is different in shape too. The wire clip changed to the spring clip in early 68 production .That is when the shape of the clutch fork end changed too.

[TonyH]

Thanks Bob.  That's the first pic I've seen that shows the difference between the two ends.  I have the bottom one which I believe to be correct for the build date.  The top one is the one I was initially thinking I should have but I don't believe it's correct.

v/r
Tony

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob.  That's the first pic I've seen that shows the difference between the two ends.  I have the bottom one which I believe to be correct for the build date.  The top one is the one I was initially thinking I should have but I don't believe it's correct.

v/r
Tony

Dec 67 would be right when things were switching over. I would think that Dec 67 engine/trans would have the wire clip type fork which is the upper picture.But that is just a educated guess based on how the same issue (although larger bearing fork) effected the 68 Shelby which I am more familiar with.  The tell will be which bellhousing you have and if that bellhousing is possibly original by being dated for your car. The fork with the spring tongue shaped clip (later 68-70 style) lower picture)will have a corresponding tongue receiving pivot point in the bellhousing. The upper fork in the picture which would be 67 and early 68 production has the wire type clip and the corresponding wire type receiving pivot point in the bellhousing. It is one way or they other . Each distinct clutch fork has a specific type clip. Of course this is all for historic context because you can make ether work given the correct alternate parts. The default on this forum is the historical context. 

[TonyH]

Dec 67 would be right when things were switching over. I would think that Dec 67 engine/trans would have the wire clip type fork which is the upper picture.But that is just a educated guess based on how the same issue (although larger bearing fork) effected the 68 Shelby which I am more familiar with.  The tell will be which bellhousing you have and if that bellhousing is possibly original by being dated for your car. The fork with the spring tongue shaped clip (later 68-70 style) lower picture)will have a corresponding tongue receiving pivot point in the bellhousing. The upper fork in the picture which would be 67 and early 68 production has the wire type clip and the corresponding wire type receiving pivot point in the bellhousing. It is one way or they other . Each distinct clutch fork has a specific type clip. Of course this is all for historic context because you can make ether work given the correct alternate parts. The default on this forum is the historical context.

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