Clutch fork

[cobrakiwi]

Would just like to add a huge thanks To Dan as well, for his knowledge and his extensive picture library. It is a great resource when people like Dan offer to share there knowledge.
Dan, Thank you Sir.

No problem installing the engine from the side, I like to have the car on a lift as well.
Lift the car so the engine hoist legs will just clear under the lift, engine in over the side.
With the CSX, Kirkham, HiTech etc, you can install the engine with out removing the hood this way.
Here is a picture of the 427 engine about to go in Bill's HiTech.

[rsk289]

Still trouble!
I have a new Carpenter clutch fork, C5OZ-7515-A which seems to be the closest I can get to original spec. But there's a problem. I have installed this into the 5-bolt bellhousing, and the fork ends are too short. It is correctly mounted to the pivot with the hairspring. I have measured the position it will sit in on the input bearing collar when in operation, and with the top retaining spring clip engaged the lower is not, or vice versa. The un-engaged clip prevents the clutch arm from moving back properly from the clutch diaphragm fingers and the release bearing binds. Photo in the correct working position:



I still have the old clutch fork from my Mustang, a '68 with 6-bolt 289, 3 speed toploader (original trans, can't verify clutch fork but likely original). This has a different rod spring mount, but has longer 'fingers'. Pic of the two together, with the pivot points aligned, new C5OZ on the left:



So, I guess I have to go with the longer Mustang fork. I don't have any part numbers for this. Anybody have any idea what's going on here? Something different about a 5-bolt bellhousing pivot point (but the Mustang one's from a 6-bolt)? Poor pattern parts - although the Carpenter piece has a Ford sticker on it with a Ford part number?
Really confused

[Dan Case]

I have not compared this with a part from any other original Cobra but this is the lever that was on CSX2551 when I bought it.

09/10/14 update. I consulted the foremost authority on 260/289 Ford production drivetrains and he advised me that the part shown came out for the 1965 SIX BOLT 289 Ford engine. He tells me that there are functional dimensional differences between it and the 1962-64 part specific to FIVE BOLT 260/289 engines. He recommended using the proper design with each engine design type.




A thing to think about is where do the fork tips ride on the bearing flange in use. The bearing doesn't move full length of the insert shaft cover's shank. It only moves out in the middle of the length somewhere.

[rsk289]

Wow. That is the exact same fork (allowing for minor measurement variation) as the one that was on my '68 Mustang. I'm beginning to think it probably wasn't the original Mustang fork as it doesn't look like any in the catalogues. Thanks Dan - I will use this and lose no sleep over it now.

The dimension of the Daniel Carpenter C5OZ arm from pivot to fork tip bearing surface is a little less than 3 3/4", but the end tips of the fork are much shorter and the release bearing springs are not retained by this as shown in my first picture. With regard to your last comment regarding the point on the input bearing retainer where the release bearing sits when in action, my photo is taken with it in position judged by measuring how far the clutch fingers sit behind the rear block facing. It would move sightly closer to the engine when the clutch is depressed.
This arm is too short - I'm very happy I have the older one! If only Ford had stamped with a number, I could tell what it's original application really was.

Looking at your photo, Dan, the CSX2551 fork has the same tip arrangement as the Sunbeam Tiger, for the circular spring. Odd.

[Dan Case]

Originally Posted by rsk289

Wow. That is the exact same fork (allowing for minor measurement variation) as the one that was on my '68 Mustang.

The dimension of the Daniel Carpenter C5OZ arm from pivot to fork tip bearing surface is a little less than 3 3/4", but the end tips of the fork are much shorter and the release bearing springs are not retained by this as shown in my first picture. With regard to your last comment regarding the point on the input bearing retainer where the release bearing sits when in action, my photo is taken with it in position judged by measuring how far the clutch fingers sit behind the rear block facing. It would move sightly closer to the engine when the clutch is depressed.

Your longer lever and the one from CSX2551 are different designs. The neck of yours is a tighter cross section and is probably stronger.

Your shorter lever is like what I see offered for sale for Ford I6s and small V8s some places and Ford I6s in others. The V8 claim doesn’t seem correct as all the I6 engine clutch parts and ancillaries are different any V8 application that I have worked on. The fingers are clearly too short for the V8 transmission input you show.

The position comment wasn't directed at you but a general audience information one. Lots of people read this forum and they might not all realize that the bearing collar doesn't stroke the full length of the bearing support shank when used with the original Ford "Long style" pressure plate design. I try to craft answers to problems with enough information to cover associated aspects.

[rsk289]

Correct as ever, Dan - my eye for detail must have been temporarily clouded by excitement!
The shorter lever is the same as two others I have which are sold as pre-'73 Mustang V8 levers. In my opinion it could be dangerous to use these as I think it could be possible for the release bearing to hang up on the shorter fork fingers. At best it could disengage from the fork and a teardown would be needed to fix it.
Interesting your point regarding the original 'long finger' clutch cover design - it could well be that the release bearing sits in a different position.
Thanks again for the information - I have installed the longer fork and everything seems to work very smoothly. Going by your photo it will also look as it should apart from the narrower neck, which will be really hard to spot in situ.