Clutch arm replacement (T5)
Discussion
Quinny said:
2OOM said:
You've made re fitting the arm sound FAR to easy!! 
Well if I'd done a video, I wouldn't be able to publish it
It'd be X Rated, on the basis of bad language
It's not a physically hard job, appart from arms above the head, but its bloody fiddly, I had the arm in and out half a dozen times, before I finally got it sussed...
But its doable, and anythings better than having to whip the gearbox out
Hopefully, the re-inforced arm will last another 100k
I did mine in the spring and I don't think it's possible to do without a large amount of swearing
I wish I'd had pics like that before I did mine though, well done
Looking at your pic's it did appear similar to the LT77 arm arrangement, and now the pusher too. What I was elluding to the other day was exactly the problem you experienced but kept quiet for fear of being shot down.
On the LT77 pusher, as you call it, when the box is off the car and the arm located on the bearing carrier, it's done so by rotation to lock it in place. This of course means the track that the slippers sit in are running opposite directions and are slightly tapered so the slippers don't push through. If they do the fork will just fall off when pedal pressure is applied.
I can't speak of the T5 arrangement, but with the LT77 and a hole cut in the bell housing, it too is a bastid believe me, it's not possible to locate the fork and slippers by way of rotating the bearing carrier in order to lock it in position. Instead all that can be done is to push the fork directly onto the carrier with the carrier already pretty much in place as if it had been rotated to lock it. Doing so means one of the slippers is forced through the narrower taper section of track it slides along when in operation, and this can, as happened to mine, damage the track so as it no longer holds one of the slippers. It took about a day or so if memory serves before the fork did exactly as you described and jammed solid. More attempts, and lots more swearing, had it all back on again, but it just made it worse. I persevered by plastic welding a closure at the end of the slipper pad track using a soldering iron. It worked for less than a week before the box had to come off and new carrier fitted.
Hope this helps.
Lady
On the LT77 pusher, as you call it, when the box is off the car and the arm located on the bearing carrier, it's done so by rotation to lock it in place. This of course means the track that the slippers sit in are running opposite directions and are slightly tapered so the slippers don't push through. If they do the fork will just fall off when pedal pressure is applied.
I can't speak of the T5 arrangement, but with the LT77 and a hole cut in the bell housing, it too is a bastid believe me, it's not possible to locate the fork and slippers by way of rotating the bearing carrier in order to lock it in position. Instead all that can be done is to push the fork directly onto the carrier with the carrier already pretty much in place as if it had been rotated to lock it. Doing so means one of the slippers is forced through the narrower taper section of track it slides along when in operation, and this can, as happened to mine, damage the track so as it no longer holds one of the slippers. It took about a day or so if memory serves before the fork did exactly as you described and jammed solid. More attempts, and lots more swearing, had it all back on again, but it just made it worse. I persevered by plastic welding a closure at the end of the slipper pad track using a soldering iron. It worked for less than a week before the box had to come off and new carrier fitted.
Hope this helps.
Lady
Edited by ladygooddriver on Friday 8th October 23:11
Quinny said:
Live and learn, and all that
I did that too For whatever reason, including me misunderstanding the simplicity of it first time around, it seemed the problem with my LT77 version was the fork when pressing toward and against the clutch put a rotating action on the carrier. It was ok for one of the slippers to slide slightly in the track as it would be trying to go the way it would if the fork were being released, but the other side slipper was forced further along the track than it should be able to go, thus it came out the back of the track and the fork fell off. I put this down to the track being damaged on one side from forcing the fork and slippers through it rather than rotating it, as I explained before. But now I'm wondering why the carrier would rotate anyway, because it should do like the one you show here. The slippers shouldn't matter their travel. They will only go as far as a depressed arm will allow. So I wonder why the rotation force on my old one. I always assumed it was the track being damaged. Doesn't matter now I suppose, but then I wouldn't affect repair through a hole in the bell housing again in the case of an LT77 if I were in the same situation as I was then.
Lady
More coils, more flex, less stress, less chance of fracture (the initial aim of the coils)... OTOMH I think mine has about 4 full turns in it, really don't know whether thats more or less what others have. Having seen how quickly engine mounts can go and how far the engine can 'shake' I'd be tempted to err on the side of extra flex, particularly as quite a few have even upgraded to flex hoses IIRC. Which maybe was what made wonder if there was much variance in how much coil was installed originally?
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff