Clutch Linkage Question....

[mstockton]

Hi all,

Going to be converting the my '82 K5 6.2 From auto to SM 465. I was wanting to go with hydraulic clutch, but its going to be much cheaper for me to use a mechanical linkage. I've heard the clutch linkage can bind under certain circumstances..

What other problems are there with the linkage, how does it shift (clutch feel)? I've never driven a truck with a mechanical linkage. (Even my '59 f500 is hydraulic)

So essentially is it worth the extra cost to go hydro?

Any opinions from people who have used both would be greatly appreciated

-Martin

 

[dyeager535]

I say without a doubt it's better to go hydro. (I mean hydraulic, hydro is water lol)

I like the pedal feel much better it...seems smooth all the way through travel, mechanical gives the feeling of some take up, then a lot of pressure, then none. Hydraulic seems easier to slip as well. Part of that of course will be clutch selection itself, but a lot of it has to do with the hydraulics.

When I started with mine, I was going mechanical as well, and the frame bracket was a real bear to get at to drill the holes for. Luckily I found out about hydraulic before I did any of that work.

Hydraulic is also a "cleaner" install, at least on the interior. The pushrod goes through the upper portion of the firewall, not down like the mechanical. I don't know if mechanical linkage can cause issues with exhaust or not, but the hydraulic fit with no issues both with manifolds and the current headers.

I don't wheel hard, so I can't say how bad the linkage style is, but if others complain, and they do, and you wheel, I'd certainly consider it a factor as well.

 

[73k5blazer]

The Hydro is nice, I guess. I have it on my '86 C10. If you have the parts for it, by all means, go for it.
But, the mechanical style, IMHO, is just as good. I've wheeled my '73 K5 (before I took it apart, hehe) pretty heavily, and I never had any issues. I think most issues stem from sloppy body mounts, and rusty sheet metal/floor boards. If you don't have those problems, then the mechanical does just fine. If you've caged your rig, all the better, less flex.

 

[imiceman44]

Hi all,

Going to be converting the my '82 K5 6.2 From auto to SM 465. I was wanting to go with hydraulic clutch, but its going to be much cheaper for me to use a mechanical linkage. I've heard the clutch linkage can bind under certain circumstances..

What other problems are there with the linkage, how does it shift (clutch feel)? I've never driven a truck with a mechanical linkage. (Even my '59 f500 is hydraulic)

So essentially is it worth the extra cost to go hydro?

Any opinions from people who have used both would be greatly appreciated

-Martin

Obviously my opinion might feel biased since I offered to sell you the mechanical clucth parts but:
I wheeled my 76 with mechanical, and it was fine when I switched to diaphragm clutch, the 3 finger style is too hard for off road when you have to push in and out too many times.
The hydraulic clutch is much smoother, and will not be affected by twisting in the frame or body or worn mounts.
I started having that problem when my frame started to fall apart and when I took it on The Rubicon the frame twisted so much that I couldn't use the clucth to disengage.
Another option which I am working on now is to convert the mechanical to cable, like the european style clutches, those like hydraulic are not affected by twisting but also if you brake a cable you can rig up any steel wire temporary to drive back home unlike hydraulic if it fails you are dead in the water