[FC] Clutch linkage - early vs. late

Wed Oct 26 11:25:12 EDT 2005

Hi everyone,

I spoke to Jason at Clark's. His experience is that the rods are all about
the same length. He said the 3780836 is quite rare to see and has a "funny
bend" in it plus the bell housing end is flattened in a little different
manner.

He also said that the 3786914 and 3827690 are the same visually. He wondered
if the manufacturer changed and that was the reason for the part number
difference.

So, that plus the catalog info below means that that 1961 had a unique rod
but that unique rod was not offered as a replacement part. 1962-1965 had the
same rod but the part number changed.

Can anyone shed additional light on this?

Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: corvanatics-bounces at corvair.org
[mailto:corvanatics-bounces at corvair.org] On Behalf Of Shaun
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:09 AM
To: The Corvanatics list
Subject: Re: [FC] Clutch linkage - early vs. late

Hi Kent, my parts book shows:
0.787 ROD, CLUTCH FORK PULL

1   3780836  1961/R1200 - FIRST JOBS - 12-1/2 OL
1   3786914  1961/R1200 - AFTER JOBS
                     1962/R1200
1   3827690  1963-65/R1200

so, there's 3 different ones...
Shaun

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Sullivan" <kentsu at corvairkid.com>
To: "'The Corvanatics list'" <corvanatics at corvair.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: [FC] Clutch linkage - early vs. late

> Right--I am definitely aware of the through vs. under cross-member part. I
> am wondering about the pull rod that is further back from there--the rod
> with the fine-threaded end that goes into the transmission.
>
> According to the assembly manuals, the first design linkage was used in
'61
> and most of '62. The '62 manual shows the second design and it's a very
late
> change in the production year. The drawings appear to be exactly the same
> for '62 - '65 so I would be interested in details of known differences in
> the second design...
>
> --Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: corvanatics-bounces at corvair.org
> [mailto:corvanatics-bounces at corvair.org] On Behalf Of James Davis
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 9:35 AM
> To: The Corvanatics list
> Subject: RE: [FC] Clutch linkage - early vs. late
>
> The late model system has the clutch cable terminating in the cross member
> where as the early model system has the clutch cable going under the cross
> member to the idler lever. The 61 Ass'y manual, Section 6 sheet 21.00
shows
> the correct early arrangement.  Rad is correct in that when I changed from
a
> 3 speed trans to a 4 speed in his Greenbrier, I used an early setup (the
> Greenbrier was purchased with a 62 car engine and 3-sp) because that is
what
> came on my 61 Rampside and I had a spare.  Only later did I find out abut
> the much different clutch cable system of  the late FC's.  Of course the
> late 63's use a hybrid system, part of the new and part of the old.  And
you
> thought all FC's were the same ;-).
> Jim Davis
>
>
>
> .At 10:36 AM 10/23/2005, you wrote:
> >Rad,
> >
> >Very interesting--thanks!
> >
> >You bring up an interesting point. The assembly manual also does not
> >make it clear how to tell the early vs. late pull rods. I *assume* I
> >have a late one since the bell crank and etc. are not on my rig--but I
> don't know for sure.
> >Do you have an easy way of determining this? The rod appears to line up
> >properly with the end of the clutch cable and does not hang down
> noticeably.
> >
> >I guess I also don't know for sure whether I have a late FC release
> >fork and fork pivot ball...
> >
> >--Kent
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: corvanatics-bounces at corvair.org
> >[mailto:corvanatics-bounces at corvair.org] On Behalf Of Rad Davis
> >Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:45 PM
> >To: The Corvanatics list
> >Subject: Re: [FC] Clutch linkage - early vs. late
> >
> >Kent,
> >
> >I have walked down that particular road:
> >
> >When my father gave me the Twinki 15 odd years ago, it was fully
> >functional, but some of the parts were an interesting mixture.
> >
> >Dad's only prior FC experience was with his '61 rampside.  Lots of the
> >late-model-specific parts were missing from Twinki when he got it, so
> >he substituted the commoner early parts and some creative fabrication
> >as necessary.
> >
> >The clutch linkage was mostly early FC, with a custom pull-rod (don't
> >have my manual handy for the proper name - I mean the threaded part
> >with the clevis pin hole on the other end that goes into the
> >bellhousing) made from a straigtened car part.  The return spring
> >"extension" was a piece of carefully-formed coathanger wire made to
> >match the one on the Rampside.  It had the cable bracket on the
> >transmission crossmember (even though it had the correct crossmember
> >with the hole), and an NOS early pivot arm assembly he'd gotten
somewhere.
> >
> >I really didn't like the way the clutch worked.  As it happened, he had
> >the wrong mixture of clutch parts resulting in a too-long clutch
> >release travel, but I didn't know that until I took everything apart
> >and measured, eventually converting to the late car/late FC clutch,
> >release fork, and fork pivot ball.  I also didn't like that the clutch
> >cable and linkage stuck down so far.  I had to pick shreds of grass out
> >of the assembly on more than one occasion after parking on turf.
> >
> >I lucked into all the right linkage parts (and a bunch of other detail
> >parts) on a '64 GB Deluxe Jerry McKenzie and I parted out in the mid
'90s.
> >Luckily, the parts van had almost all the odd parts the 63-65 vans came
> >with.  Also luckily, Jerry had a '61, so didn't want any of them.  I
> >didn't know that the Z-shaped bracket was so rare.  It would be trivial
> >to reproduce.  I also didn't know that the late dust cap wasn't
> >properly documented.  It would indeed be a real challenge to get
> >everything together without that special tab for the cable return
> >spring.  I suspect that the late dust cap could also be done as a
> >cottage reproduction given a supply of early/car dust caps.
> >
> >My best guess about the early "extension" and that funny long L-bracket
> >tab on the dust cap is that the spring was used on something that was a
> >lot more common than FC corvairs.  Perhaps Chevy truck clutch return
> >springs of the era?  An interchange manual of the era and the spring
> >part number might be helpful.
> >
> >As for why GM did it that way, I've always had the feeling that the
> >first design mechanism was made to minimize investment in custom parts.
> >It certainly isn't a rational design given a clean slate.  The
> >transmission cross member is the same as the early car part.  The
> >spring looks like it was sourced somewhere else as well.  It may well
> >be that the second design was really the original design but was
> >shelved because of the retool cost of adding that hole in the
transmission
> cross member.
> >
> >-- Rad
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corvanatics mailing list
> Corvanatics at corvair.org
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/corvanatics
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
> http://www.corvair.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corvanatics mailing list
> Corvanatics at corvair.org
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/corvanatics
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
http://www.corvair.org/

_______________________________________________
Corvanatics mailing list
Corvanatics at corvair.org
http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/corvanatics
This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
http://www.corvair.org/