Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

HYDRAULIC THROW-OUT BEARING

Discussion in '1973-1991 K5 Blazer | Truck | Suburban' started by BTCRAWFORD, Nov 25, 2002.

  1. BTCRAWFORD

    BTCRAWFORD Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA
    HAS ANYONE HAD ANY SUCCESS USING A HYDRAULIC THROW-OUT
    BEARING, INSTEAD OF AN EXTERNAL ACTUATOR ON THE BELL HOUSING? ANY ADVANTAGES-DISADVANTAGES?
     
  2. imiceman44

    imiceman44 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Posts:
    15,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    I have read a lot about it and I am planning on using it.
    The advantage would be that you don't have to hunt down the different belhousing and pedal assembly.
    I don't know if it's any better but I think it's easier to adapt.
    I also saw an article on the installation, and testing afterwards, but for the results I don't always trust the mags, they tend to advertize the products so they don't really bash them.
    /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     
  3. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,975
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    I recall a thread (on here maybe) about the hydraulic throwout bearings. Apparently they are somewhat prone to failure, I don't think they are OEM on anything.
     
  4. muddysub

    muddysub 1 ton suburban status Staff Member Moderator GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Posts:
    10,451
    Likes Received:
    489
    Location:
    my garage, Henderson, NV
    don't type in all caps it means you're yelling. /forums/images/graemlins/angryfire.gif
     
  5. DieselDan

    DieselDan 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2001
    Posts:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    Sorry Dye, they're standard on all the late model F bodies (Camaro/Firebird). Matter of fact, if I can find the PN, it was pretty reasonable for the whole assembly - master/resevior/hyd line/slave bearing. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  6. fortcollinsram

    fortcollinsram 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Posts:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Collins, CO
    IMHO, hydraulic TO's are absolute CRAP...the hydraulic system is much more prone to faliure as a result of them...most late model stuff has 'em...S10, Fullsize trucks, camaros, etc...The run-of-the-mill one offer little clutch "feel". I work at NAPA part time and the local 4x4 shop orders, most frequently, u-joints, and HYDRAULIC TO bearings, usually off of Jeeps...I would avoid them...For $100 you can get a new MC and slave cylinder from GM and then go to a yard and get a decent bell for like $40...I am extremely happy w/ my setup...

    Chris
     
  7. blazer72

    blazer72 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2000
    Posts:
    939
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    About the only part that always works right is the hydraulic bearing in my truck, the interresting thing is all of the folk I know only use OEM parts not the ones from the after market. The only time I had a problem it was with the master that I got from my local parts store.
     
  8. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,975
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    Well...'98+ f-body LS1/T56 combo's only, however, you are right, the newer stuff is hydraulic TO bearing-ed. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    Apparently even the newer trucks are as well.

    Perhaps it was just a "new thing" problem that has been worked out. (or as was implied, aftermarket cheapness) If its OEM, I probably wouldn't worry too much. But I'd still run the stock hydraulic 80's truck stuff first /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
     
  9. madmike

    madmike 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Posts:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ohio
    I had a friend with a '91 YJ, 4 cyl 5 speed, that had a factory hydraulic throwout bearing arrangement. In the 3-4 years he had that Jeep, he went through two of those bearings, doing only light to moderate fourwheeling trails and water crossings. He and I weren't impressed with it, and pressing in the clutch was like pushing open a screen door, ya couldn't "feel" it.
     
  10. 73k5blazer

    73k5blazer Unplug the matrix cable from the back of your head Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Posts:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    The Rustbelt
    I've got a '97 Chev2500HD 6.5LTD with 5sp manual. It has the Hydralic TO. I replaced the clutch at 90,000mi and not the TO bearing. Big Mistake. The TO bearing failed at 130,000mi, it leaked all over my half-used cluctch so I ended up replacing that again too. Might as well anyway, because you need to remove the whole transmission (Transfer case too!) anyhow to get to it
    I personally don't like 'em, I don't think any Hydraulic system is neccessary in any light duty truck. My '73 blazer has a centerforce dual friction clutch with the same, possibly even less pedal effort than my '97, and WAY more feedback.
    I hear they are nice for doing goofy transmission/engine mate-ups, but if everything you've got is Chevy, stick with the manual set-up or the external hydraulic set-up..
    Just my $0.02

    BlazerMan
     
  11. BTCRAWFORD

    BTCRAWFORD Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA
    Thanks for the feed back. You confirmed what I had thought for the most part. Im still not sure what bell housing will mate up to the 80 block. Hopefully an 86 bell should work. Im planning on a 2" body lift and Im concerned it will screw up the linkage geometry, thats why I want to go hydro.

    Tanks again.
     
  12. fortcollinsram

    fortcollinsram 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Posts:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Collins, CO
    is the b lock a Chevy block? if so the bellhousing WILL match up...all chevy bellhousing patterns (on the block side) are the same..even the D-max and 8.1L use the same bellhousing pattern...go with the conventional GM hydro setup, the one that uses the shift for and conventional TO bearing...you will like it...

    Chris
     
  13. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,975
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    If its a Chev motor, (why wouldn't iut be?) the hydraulic *truck* bellhousing will work.
     
  14. DieselDan

    DieselDan 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2001
    Posts:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    Isn't that GM truck hydro B/H a right side slave cylinder (that won't work with a passenger-side transfer drop) /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

    What got me intersted in the Hydro T/O bearing was the possibility of using a GM B/H and a NV4500 with out having to cough-up for an Advance Adapter B/H ($$$).

    PS. What! they made F bodies with out V-8's who the hell would buy that? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  15. fortcollinsram

    fortcollinsram 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Posts:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Collins, CO
    NO...you are thinking of the bellhousing that came on trucks with the NV4500...Even so, I don't thing that the salve would interfere with the front driveline...the hydro bellhousing that I am using has the slave on the drivers side...
     
  16. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,975
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
  17. blazer72

    blazer72 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2000
    Posts:
    939
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    You can put in the NV4500 useing GM parts and it works much better than The stuff from AA plus it chaeper a lot cheaper
     
  18. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,975
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    hey if you can build it with GM parts, I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't take 100 hours of self labor vs. buying a $100 part that fits! (no clue if thats the case, just thinking)

    The 465 hyde. install was a no brainer on my truck, simply because both were offered in that vehicle. Obviously going with something never intended for a certain vehicle will take some effort to do, just seems that most times, when a conversion piece is offered for big $$, it's because the time spent trying to make something else work isn't worth it compared to the dollar amount of the conversion piece.
     
  19. blazer72

    blazer72 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2000
    Posts:
    939
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    putting the nv 4500 in with just GM parts is simple, and its abolt in.
     
  20. DieselDan

    DieselDan 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2001
    Posts:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    OK '72, just how do you install a NV4500 into a K5 using GM parts? Aren't you still going to have an interferance problem with the front drive shaft? /forums/images/graemlins/ears.gif
     

Share This Page