Clutch Fork

MatBat · Post by **MatBat** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:01 am

Hello all.

The clutch fork in my car has at some point snapped (see blueline on image) so the cable has been positioned much lower down on the fork. Because of this the clutch is very heavy and will only release the clutch when the pedal is nearly to the floor. Has anyone else had this problem?

I was thinking of getting another piece welded onto the fork, dp you have any other suggestions? I'd imagine it is quite a job to replace.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:48 am

Isn't the "normal" place for the clutch to release nearly at the bottom of the pedal stroke then? Mine is down at the bottom, but all 3 of my 480s, and the 300 series before that were similar. I don't mind it like this at all, except sometimes in fast up-through-the-gears action my clutch foot is faster than my hand on the stick, and vroooom as I try to accelerate in neutral

MatBat · Post by **MatBat** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:05 am

Yes, it they are a fast acting clutch, but I am having to press the clutch into the carpet, the cable adjustment is not correct because of the cable position on the fork i.e it's not getting the same amount of travel.

pol · Post by **pol** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:08 am

You do realise they did a long a short clutch release fork, dependant of year??

pol

MatBat · Post by **MatBat** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:16 am

pol wrote:You do realise they did a long a short clutch release fork, dependant of year??

pol

Yes I was aware

But mine is definately broken, the cable in right next to the clutch housing.

May better illustrate.

chris1roll · Post by **chris1roll** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:54 am

to replace that, you would need to take the transmission off. course if your doing that you may as well replace the clutch plate, and the thrust bearing at hte same time.

MatBat · Post by **MatBat** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:07 pm

Hmm,

I might see if it can be welded then

chris1roll · Post by **chris1roll** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:35 pm

if you can weld it well enough that close to the housing... you might be lucky. is it not aluminium? welding that is quite specialised.

MatBat · Post by **MatBat** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:40 pm

[quote="chris1roll"]is it not aluminium? quote]

I hope not! It does seem strange making that part out of aluminium, I'd have thought they would use steel as it has alot of force on it. I'll find out and let you all know

chris1roll · Post by **chris1roll** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:45 pm

the corrosion looks like aluminium, haven't got my car here to check myself.
aluminium is actually quite strong....
although not strong enough apparently!!

MatBat · Post by **MatBat** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:50 pm

So it would seem!

I agree the corrosion does look like alluminium.

Ben Harris · Post by **Ben Harris** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:03 am

pol wrote:You do realise they did a long a short clutch release fork, dependant of year??

pol

That's interesting to know. That might explain why the clutch on my '89ES is much heavier than my '93ES. Aparently, the changeover took place between chassis -565116 and -565117.

As mine two are chassis numbers -510724 for '89ES and -586900 for the '93ES, that makes perfect sense.

Ben.

pol · Post by **pol** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:53 am

They have an earlier and later clutch too... Earlier one being a smaller diameter... And a shit load cheaper!

pol

Ben Harris · Post by **Ben Harris** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:00 am

According to the "unmentionable software", they only changed the clutch for the Turbo's, between chassis numbers 567599 and 567600.

The 1.7 non-turbo's and 2.0's both have different clutches too, but they've remained the same throughout their production.

Ben.