Bellhousing depths?

Internal slave cylinders (hydraulic throw-out bearings) are so much more reliable now than when they first appeared. For a cruiser or mostly street/strip car I'd use one. For something you're going to hammer a lot and could have clutch damage (that can damage the slave) I wouldn't. Jeep guys didn't like them, but that's on serious rock crawlers that are turned up a lot in low gear and they are on the clutch a lot more than normal. When they leak they don't work well, so you know before the clutch is ruined. Only downside is having to pull the trans to change, but for most people that won't be any more often than changing the throw-out bearing anyway.

I have a part's store replacement CSC for a 2000 Camaro for the T56 in my Javelin. Hasn't been an issue and was simpler to fit converting from an auto. Using a stock replacement part has advantages if it ever does fail.

Best thing I did was buy a transmission jack as it makes the R&R of a 130 lbs. T56 far easier. When fitting an aftermarket transmission, count on installing and removing it a few times to check and re-check everything. Having the right tools for the job makes it much easier.

Tom, besides AMC, my experience is with light trucks ['61-'68] from International Harvester. They all had the juice clutch. Bleeding the system was the Achilles' heel of the system, especially with the '61-'66 combined brake and clutch master cylinder [separate reservoirs]. I have pumped and bled and bled and pumped until I was blue in the face...and then left it overnight and had the air make its way to the master cylinder [self-bleed?] while I let it sit overnight.

But it's no more leak-prone than hydraulic brakes...and fewer points to leak from than a brake system.

I bench-bled the CSC (Concentric Slave Cylinder ... AKA hydraulic throw-out bearing), hose and master cylinder as an assembly before installing in the car and was able to keep everything connected during installation, so instant pedal response.   Actually easier than bleeding brakes. I used a Wilwood master and they have bore sizes ranging from 5/8" to 1 1/8" in 1/16" increments.

I guess the same argument for simplicity and reliability applies to mechanical vs hydraulic brakes? Doubt anyone would want to go back to mechanical brakes?

For me, it was simpler to bolt the CSC to the transmission, bolt the master to the firewall (required a clearance hole and 1 bolt hole), bolt the pushrod to the pedal (custom bracket) and run a hose than to try to get all the parts to make a mechanical clutch work when converting from an auto. More importantly, the the LS-style T56 I used is designed for a CSC and the bell I used has no provision for a mechanical clutch fork.

If you already have a mechanical clutch that works well and adapts easily to the transmission, sure, stick with it.

Edit: Add photos of AMC T56 Magnum Bell Housing ... no provision for mechanical clutch:




Thanks,RD

Edited by Red Devil - Aug/03/2018 at 11:48am

I used a 2000 Camaro CSC and a 13/16" master. What works best will depend on your setup. Most run a 3/4" master.