Some of you may have seen my post about my son's clutch not disengaging in his 67. We dropped the motor tonight and check out the pictures of the pressure plate. What happened to cause the TOB contact area to be so distorted and crooked? This pressure plate has 5000 miles on it and as you can see by the disc / plate contact area, there has been no abusive driving.
We also noticed the crosshaft has a lot of fore and aft play in it, about a 1/4 to 3/8 inch. The locking bolt is tight and the shaft moves as a unit. When I looked at my IRS trans to compare there is virtually no fore and aft play.
Hmm did that little ring that holds that collar on the pressure plate come off / loose or otherwise get damaged,,, this could cause that collar to become misaligned?
Also some clutches need to have that collar removed for the pressure plate/ clutch assembly to work correctly. This depends on the trans year and motor type.
When we put a new Kennedy 2500 lb PP on our race motor a couple weeks ago we needed to remove that ("donut collar" for lack of knowing a beter word) from the pressure plate because of the year trans we have.
Otherwise check the springs in the PP and make sure one did not come loose and unwind or move. This is an odd one!
I hate to say it, but contact the company you purchased it from. If it wasn't used in racing, then it should be under warranty. 5k on a pressure plate is unacceptable in my book. If it's a reliable parts dealer, then they should replace it. If not, post a review on your experience with the company.
I have seen that many times.Alot of times it's a bad pp.I've seen guys not use a star pattern tightening sequence and cause that damage too.Regardless of how it happened,that pp is no good.Send it back or buy another.
bones wrote:...We also noticed the crosshaft has a lot of fore and aft play in it...
You mean side-to-side? The snapring groove may not be in the correct location for the type of LH bushing being used. You could add shim washers next to the snapring to take out the slop.
If there's that much radial play between the shaft and bushings the bushings are either completely shot or it's a late case intended for a larger-diameter cross-shaft...if that was true it'd have provision for bolting on a guide tube so you could use the late-style cross-shaft/TOB/cover setup.
I returned the PP to the store I purchased it from and was told the problem was that I has too little free play in the pedal. I said BS as I know the freeplay was correct. I've owned vw's since I was 16 and I'm now 53. I have adjsuted a few clutches in that time. The owner refused to refund any portion of the PP so he has now lost mine and my son's business. (this is his first car)
The excess x shaft play turned out to be a result of several factors;
1. The bushings were shot.
2. The sleeve that holds the bushings was installed in such a way that the
hole to hold the bushing in place was not in line with the hole in the
transaxle so when the bolt was tightened down it deformed the sleeve
and compressed the sleeve against the x shaft resulting in the sleeve
making contact with the x shaft and grinding a large depression into
the shaft. Over time the bolt could not hold the sleeve and the sleeve was rotating in the case every time the pedal was depressed. This is a ranch pro street tranny.
All is fixed now in terms of the clutch but I'm still having shifter movement especially in second gear when I jump on it as well as a very slight chatter when letting the clutch out. The mounts are new but were purchased from the same company I purchased the PP. Maybe they are the soft ones Berg mentioned in his blue book. I also have a berg intermediate mount and still I'm getting shifter movement.
My take on this is it is the PP that is absolute crap.
This is one of the reasons I hate building motors for other people in that no matter how carefully you do the work, some seemly good part fails. And I have seen enough of them go bad like that to only use antique (20-30 year old plates from core motors) 3-arm flat style or 9 spring in my own cars.
The last time I saw a PP look like that was 2 weeks after I rebuilt a '68-70 bug? Who had the mis fortunate last name of Gex (no relation to that shop). I was very proud of that motor, it had thermostat, heat riser cover tin, warm air mixer, even a working windshield squirter. I figured I wouldn't see that car for at least a few years.
But that isn't the only time they fail (new), they also fail when used (1 year or more in service). I personally think it is a design flaw but wouldn't rule out quality control issue.
The only way I could think it might be the installers fault is if you some how mis-matched clutch pedal arms (too long) with clutch throw out bearing arm (too short) and over extended the fingers.
Some work fine for years, others are absolutely junk. Welcome to world of low bidder parts.
I have had simular issues with a fuel pump flange.
Yeah some may call it overkill, but you can't have too much overkill.
sideshow wrote:The only way I could think it might be the installers fault is if you some how mis-matched clutch pedal arms (too long) with clutch throw out bearing arm (too short) and over extended the fingers.
This could be a contributor to the problem. When John's son's car was made in 67, VW installed a clutch with 6 coil springs, not a diaphragm clutch. The new diaphragm clutches require less travel, and their introduction coincides with the longer clutch arm on the transmission in the early 70s.
Since all the available clutches are now diaphragm type, you really need to use a longer clutch arm. The side benefit is that your pedal effort will be vastly reduced if you use this longer arm.
I was surprized that all PP's available now are the diaphram type. In my ghia I have a kennedy 3 finger PP with the longer arm on a SSC IRS. It seems to work just fine and no problems after 15K. This would be an opposite application in that the longer arm is for the diaphram type PP. I agree the pedal effort is vastly easier.
In some other posts in this forum, some have advocated not to use the longer arm on the early trannys. What has been your experience on this Bruce in terms of longevity and durability?
"Diaphragm" refers to the spring, not the release lever configuration - you can have a 3-finger cover that still uses a diaphragm spring. Coil-spring covers are unmistakeable since they have 6 or 9 coils protruding from them.
There's no downside to using the longer lever provided the clutch will still release cleanly. Cars with a travel stop on the pedal may need it removed/cut off.
bones wrote:
In some other posts in this forum, some have advocated not to use the longer arm on the early trannys. What has been your experience on this Bruce in terms of longevity and durability?
Where are these posts where they say not to use the long arm? Everyone I've sold an arm to in the past has used them with great success.
Bruce - while trying to explore the possibilities of my son's 67 problems I was doing various searches and topics. during one of the searches I saw a reply to someone's post regarding the arm length. I really didn't pay too much attention to it because it did not apply at the time. Tonight I tried searching some of the topics I could remember but I can't find it now. It could have been under clutch chatter, bowden tubes tranny mounts or pressure plates but again nothing showed up today.
At any rate your idea has merit regarding the diaphram PP in an early car vs arm length. I'd be willing to try it in my son's car. Thanks
Bruce2 wrote:...The new diaphragm clutches require less travel, and their introduction coincides with the longer clutch arm on the transmission in the early 70s....
Are you sure about that? I don't recall when the arm was lengthened the first time but the diaphragm cover came out in 1970.
