My hydraulic conversion underway

v8ranger · Post by **v8ranger** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:26 am

Here are some pics of my hydraulic conversion underway. I am waiting for the stock line to come in now so I can hook it up. I will probably add a brace from the bracket so it will help with the pressure so I don't end up braking off the bell housing. It may not be necessary but I would rather be safe than sorry.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:52 am

I see you did the same thing I did which is try to use the pushrod that came with the slave. That's not going to work unfortunately. Here's the thread showing pics of what I eventually ended up with and some attempts that worked, but weren't optimal:
It runs, but the clutch doesn't completely disengage

The problem is the slave just BARELY doesn't push out enough to completely disengage the clutch. What I did was replaced that green rod with a threaded rod from a carriage bolt. Then I used a series of nuts and washers to put a preload on the fork which is exactly what the old cable clutch setup did from what I've heard. That's been working for over 3 years no problem.

Also you'll need the quick disconnect piece from a stock Ranger center-mount slave cylinder to install in the slave. The stock Ranger hardline has a quick-disconnect piece on the end of it, not the piece needed to fit inside the slave. The quick-disconnect from the stock Ranger slave "converts" the quick disconnect to the fitting needed to fit inside that slave. Notice:

You can see the white ring which is part of the stock Ranger hardline's quick disconnect fitting. The black part between that white ring and the slave is the piece you'll need installed if you don't already have it. This also shows the threaded rod I was describing above.

Also, no need to put any extra bracing on there to protect the bell. You can push that fork with the palm of your hand. It takes a little bit to do it and will leave red marks on your palm, but once it starts to move, it lets go and you can completely disengage the clutch with your hand. As thick as that aluminum is and as much torque as it is having to endure from the engine to the tanny, I seriously doubt the pressure from the slave will have any long term effect on the metal.

v8ranger · Post by **v8ranger** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:44 am

I'm trying to understand why you would have to replace the stock rod with a bolt. When I made my plate I had to double it up where it bolts to the houseing in order to get it far enough away from the fork. The way it sits right now there does seem to be presure on the fork form the slave. I do remember reading that thread and sothing about pre load. I figure I would add a spring to help the slave if it was having a hard time pushing it. I am NOT running a heavy duty "stiff" preasure plate.
I guess I will see what happens when I get the line to see if I have to do the bolt or add a spring. I figure if it wasnt pushing very well I would add a spring to pull on it.
I got my 1.7 roller rockers today, they look sweet!!

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:02 pm

There is a spring inside the slave that is putting some pressure on the fork...but not nearly enough to preload the fork forward enough to make the distance. So what you do with the threaded rod is bottom it out at the back of the slave cylinder. With it bottomed out, you run the nuts on the threaded end forward while putting hand pressure on the fork (preloading it). Now what that does is it puts a built-in 1/8-1/4" travel on the fork before the slave ever begins to move...and that little bit is all it takes to get the clutch to completely disengage when you do push the clutch all the way in. The spring inside the slave just isn't near strong enough to preload the fork forward that 1/4" distance. So you use the back of the slave cylinder to do it. Thus, the only time the threaded rod is ever not bottoming out is when you push the clutch pedal in. But when you let off on the pedal, the rod will always return to resting at the back of the slave keeping the fork "preloaded" that 1/8-1/4".

With the setup you have, you will push the clutch in and it'll ALMOST disengage. In fact if you push the shifter hard enough, the synchros may be able to overcome the friction of the clutch at that point and actually get the tranny in gear. But doing that on a regular basis would be VERY hard on the tranny.

Does that make sense?

v8ranger · Post by **v8ranger** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:38 pm

I do understand what your saying. Looking at your pic and my pic the setup is the same idea but differant. I had to space my braket further back and you didnt. I dont know if its because they are two differant bell housings or what. I couldnt set mine up the way yours is. I take that back, if I do there would be a " preload " on the fork, but I think it would have been to much. Time will tell i guess. Just waiting on my line to come in at this point. I have found over the years after mine is done, some people are having problems in some areas of the swap that I never have had problems with. So who knows lol, maybe im lucky lol, but I wont hold my breath lol.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:16 pm

I see the thickness you are talking about that has your slave sitting further back away from the fork but I'm a little confused what was requiring the extra thickness between your plate and the slave. I have to admit, your fork does look further back than my fork does so it is quite possible that bar will work for you. Is your bell is from a pre-94 vehicle or from a 94-95 Mustang?

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:02 pm

V8Ranger,
Glad you learned how to post pictures, it sure helps rather than try and describe something. I know how to do it but I still get some strange results at times. I remember when Chris was having trouble with his set-up. Part of the problems come from using a slave cylinder and different lever ratio with a thinner clutch on a differerent set-up.
Chris,
I know you have the bore and stroke of a lot of the master cylinders and different slave cylinders. Would you be so kind to send them to me or just post them here. I remember some of the differences but would like to be sure.
Dave

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:19 pm

There was supposedly a difference in diameter for the master cylinders. After MULTIPLE orders from both Advance and AutoZone, I found that even the masters that claimed to be the larger diameter were not. They all were 3/4" diameter where some claimed to be 7/8" diameter. I wanted the larger diameter so that the master would move more fluid for the same pedal movement and I wouldn't need the preload. But after my setup worked so well with so little preload, I quit looking further. Looking back at the Advance/AutoZone website, I see the mention of bore diameter has been removed from their Ranger master cylinders.

I believe all the 83-84 Ranger external clutch slaves are 7/8" diameter.

v8ranger · Post by **v8ranger** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:53 am

My bell is from a 1990. My slave is for a 83 Ranger. I had to space it back because if I didnt the slave was bottomed out and I think it was starting to push on the fork. I didnt want it to be dottomed out like that as I figured it might be pushing on the clutch and there for maybe giving it the chance to slip because it wouldnt let off enough.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:32 am

Something must be different about your clutch fork that puts it closer to the slave than my setup has it. I'm using an FMS King Cobra clutch which from what I can tell is identical to the stock clutch with the exception of a stronger pressure plate. But the location of the fork is right where a stock clutch would be. If you are running an aftermarket clutch that has a thicker pressure plate, then your fork is probably further back than mine is in which case the pushrod would be further pressed into the slave cylinder. The location of mine was no where near bottomed out. It had a good 1/2" to go before the rod bottomed. If you can make your rod bottom out, that may just be what you need to "preload" the clutch fork.

And like you, I was concerned that the clutch would have too much pressure on it and want to slip if I preloaded it too much. And if you put too much preload on it, it would slip under hard WOTs. But the amount you preload with is not nearly enough to introduce slippage. When I let out on the clutch pedal, the point at which I have "complete grab", the pedal still has another 2" of travel before it is at rest. So the small amount I preloaded by wasn't enough to cause me problems. But then again, I run a relatively stock engine. Perhaps if I were shoving 400hp through the clutch, that would be different? I can't say.

v8ranger · Post by **v8ranger** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:46 am

I am running an all stock clutch set up for a 1990 GT. maybe that is the differance. And with the pressure plate being stock replacment it wont need as much force to push. I estimate about 275 to 300HP on my engine. but I am going with the fact a stock 1990 5.0HO is 225HP and with differant heads and cam, now 1.7 rockers I should be in that area. But that just a guess on my part. Desk top dyno has me at more than that but I dont think its right. It has me more at 350HP... That would be nice but not realistic in my opinion.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:14 am

You might be surprised at what you have. This test was done with the alum GT-40 heads and a cam somewhat close to yours. MM & FF started out their testing by dyno testing a stock 5.0 and came up with almost 250hp, not the 225 advertised.
Dave

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:43 am

Dave wrote:MM & FF started out their testing by dyno testing a stock 5.0 and came up with almost 250hp, not the 225 advertised.

I think the word stock was referring only to the E7TE heads. They were using a carb & carb intake on all those tests which in itself changes the performance as compared to the stock Ford 5.0L injected HO engine.

Also they were using an aftermarket cam for all those head tests which is a MUCH better cam than the stock HO cam. I expect the aftermarket cam they used was mostly responsible for the 25hp increase between an advertised 225hp stock 5.0L and the 250hp E7TE baseline values they were working with in that head test.

But your point is true. Upgraded heads, E303 cam, now 1.7 RRs, etc, he may be over 300hp particularly since the E303 holds its own right up to 6000RPMs and in some cases, beyond.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:28 am

Sorry for the confusion Chis, it was actually a different series of dyno test where they ran a completly stock 5.0 injected Mustang motor as a base line when they did all the different injection set-ups. Seems like no one had ever done that before.
Dave

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:48 am

Ahh, ok. What you posted up was a page from the MM&FF Cylinder head shootout and I wasn't aware of that other MM&FF test...interesting.