Just attempted to swing my NV4500 into place so that I could get to fabricating the new cross member, but it didn't go! It appears that the input shaft is bottoming out on the end of the crank. Taking a measurement showed that the Input shaft is aproximately .750" too long. Input shaft total length is 7.750" and the bellhousing depth to crank end (no pilot bearing) is 7.000" .
My only guess at this point (and My question) is that the bellhousing adapters are different between automatics and manuals??? Or is it that my adapter being a 1993 is too shallow??? Are 1994 and up deeper???
Looks like my adapter is about 1.250" deep... if that helps.
Found a 03 - 06 adapter and it looks to be the propper depth, but not sure if it will cause other problems!
UPDATE: It looks like I'm in the market for a 94 - 02 bellhousing adapter from a 5spd (NV4500) truck.
Ah.... I need to re-measure this, because now I'm confused....
I thought there would be a plate on the inside. If there was it doesn't have to fit the cylinder tight, all the inside plate has to do is keep the outside plate from pushing away. Just thru bolt it into the other plate to keep em both from pushing thru. I'd make the inside plate as large as possible. If you wanted to you could gusset between the pedal bracket and the inside plate to relieve some stress from the firewall, It would'nt take much.
__________________
1976 crew cab, 4x4, family tow monster. 97 Dodge Cummins engine doner.
Ok, I did understand/see the retaining method correctly... I agree what a poor design.
I would think .125" 6061 plate is strong enough to support the M/C via the 4 tabs, I just don't think for a second the sheet metal is.
As I'm sure you know, 6061 doesn't bend so good, So I do think it will support the M/C that is why I suggested using it to retain the M/C not the sheet metal.
Whats the MAX thickness you could use for the M/C (ie: between tabs and flange) Whatever that dim. is, is what I would use for the mounting plate.
What about using the 6061 for the mount on the inside, then take another piece and cut it to key around the tabs and screw it to the mounting plate to prevent spinning. Like:
Sorry for the cheesy AutoCAD Image, Quick and dirty and NOT TO SCALE!
You really probably only need to catch one tab, there is not going to be much force trying to spin it. Like a horse shoe shape catching one tab.
This way all the firewall is doing is supporting the mounting plate, I would also make the mounting plate large enough to spread the load.
Ok, I should have looked again at your pic's... And not relied on my memory, old age is the pits!
Now I see an error of my Image.
Square hole is right.
But I think I would do as I suggested before with two plates on the inside, This also keeps the engine side of the firewall cleaner. Use button head hex bolts to hold it all together, don't need but a couple this way.. Neat and Clean on the visible side. (Engine Side)
Basically the same thing you have done with your plate and the firewall.
Each rotated 45 degrees from each other. One as a mounting plate the other as a keeper. Of course the keeper plate doesn't need to be as big as the mounting plate, use real short screws through the keeper threaded into the mounting plate to hold it and not showing on the engine side.
I'm going to jump in on this one having looked at my master cyl last night BECAUSE of this discussion...
The way the mater attaches to the sheet metal won't allow for a thick bracket. It's "twist lock" type design makes it so Mark's .125" 6061 is about all that will fit.
I didn't spend enough time looking at the pedal area (was getting my motor pulled AGAIN) so I'm not sure how feasable it is to attach to the streering column area, but here is my $0.02.
I would run another plate inside the cab to sandwich the fire wall. Make the inside plate the same size or larger as the 6061 plate and make it also of 6061 and weld a tab on it at a 90* angle (or make is out of 5052 and bend it) to come back and bolt to a pedal support bracket, etc. Then weld a "gusset" on top to keep that 90* from bending more.
I looked for pics of the pedal area in my truck - and none show what I am talking about trying to attach this too.
Adding a "tab" that ties back to an existing, supported structure will help the thing from pushing through.
Here's a quick sketch - obviously not right, but it explains better than I can in words - haha
*also - side note since a lot of cummins swap people are watching this - I have a question on keeping the in-cab tank. Instead of posting it here where I'm sure many would see it - take a second to look for a new thread. Thanks
__________________ Have you flown a ford lately? 1938 Ford Pickup = hot rod
1970 Ford F250 long bed & 1974 Ford F100 Supercab - 2wds
1974 Ford F250 4x4 Crew cabthread in "motor swap" forum 1989 Ford Ranger= Never gonna be done...
1972 Alfa Romeo GTV & 1999 Toyota Tacoma 4wd = DD
I'm going to jump in on this one having looked at my master cyl last night BECAUSE of this discussion...
The way the mater attaches to the sheet metal won't allow for a thick bracket. It's "twist lock" type design makes it so Mark's .125" 6061 is about all that will fit.
I didn't spend enough time looking at the pedal area (was getting my motor pulled AGAIN) so I'm not sure how feasable it is to attach to the streering column area, but here is my $0.02.
I would run another plate inside the cab to sandwich the fire wall. Make the inside plate the same size or larger as the 6061 plate and make it also of 6061 and weld a tab on it at a 90* angle (or make is out of 5052 and bend it) to come back and bolt to a pedal support bracket, etc. Then weld a "gusset" on top to keep that 90* from bending more.
I looked for pics of the pedal area in my truck - and none show what I am talking about trying to attach this too.
Adding a "tab" that ties back to an existing, supported structure will help the thing from pushing through.
Here's a quick sketch - obviously not right, but it explains better than I can in words - haha
*also - side note since a lot of cummins swap people are watching this - I have a question on keeping the in-cab tank. Instead of posting it here where I'm sure many would see it - take a second to look for a new thread. Thanks
I like that idea..... I can incorporate something like that to my set up which I added to today.....
Taken some of this feedback and this is what I developed today....
I found that I can add another plate about 3/16th of an inch behind the first plate that I made. Cool thing is that is within a 32nd of what my wall thickness is with the line-x......
You can see the diameter that has the webing... this is my target area.
This is the plate that I made to fit.... it is cut to fit the webing and get down to the OD for support and it is not quite finished yet as you can see that one half is a little different than the other...
Here is the fit..... kinda hard to see.
These two plates will now sandwich the firewall.... the webing solves my problem of the MC rotating.
Next I will look at adding a strut to the column or other solid area.... you guys have great ideas!!!!!
Some new information for those looking at where to mount.... it looks like I might be a bit low from the pivot point. I'm hearing that the factory mounts are about 2.5 to 3 inches below the peddle pivot!
I thought you had already cycled the clutch pedal and looked at the "throw" of the plunger rod to determine the location.
If you don't want to cut another hole in the firewall then look at adding a tab on the back of the pedal to move it closer to the plunger...
__________________ Have you flown a ford lately? 1938 Ford Pickup = hot rod
1970 Ford F250 long bed & 1974 Ford F100 Supercab - 2wds
1974 Ford F250 4x4 Crew cabthread in "motor swap" forum 1989 Ford Ranger= Never gonna be done...
1972 Alfa Romeo GTV & 1999 Toyota Tacoma 4wd = DD
I thought you had already cycled the clutch pedal and looked at the "throw" of the plunger rod to determine the location.
If you don't want to cut another hole in the firewall then look at adding a tab on the back of the pedal to move it closer to the plunger...
I'm happy on the throw..... peddle travel vs MC plunger stroke, but my new found concern is peddle feel. Am I too far from pivot? Is the peddle feel goin to be too stiff for comfort... in comparison, I have lost some mechanical advantage, just not sure to what degree... Another words it may be fine for my leg strength, but not for my wife! Hmmmm maybe thats a good thing. LOL!
I'm going to have to put this on hold... I can see that I need to get the short block dropped in and get the clutch and bellhousing on so I can do the right thing rather than an educated guess...
So I'll get the garage cleaned up and get ready to drop that motor in on Tuesday....
It needs to be mounted in the correct position to get the proper swing stroke ratio.
If you have it to high you won't get enough stroke for the swing, if it's to low the swing will over stroke the M/C. You do NOT want to over stroke the M/C bottoming it out!
However with that said, it's better to over stroke and build a stop on the swing then to under stroke the M/C.
Another thing is the more you over stroke the shorter and harder the swing will be. So it really is a careful balance.
I would duplicate the ratios of whatever the M/C slave combo came from.. I assume Dodge!
I like the fact that your current design gives more strength to the M/C retaining tabs, However on the other hand I do not like the plate visible on the engine side of the FW, One of my goals was to not obscure the (engine) visible side of the firewall.
If you have it to high you won't get enough stroke for the swing, if it's to low the swing will over stroke the M/C. You do NOT want to over stroke the M/C bottoming it out!
However with that said, it's better to over stroke and build a stop on the swing then to under stroke the M/C.
Another thing is the more you over stroke the shorter and harder the swing will be. So it really is a careful balance.
I would duplicate the ratios of whatever the M/C slave combo came from.. I assume Dodge!
-Enjoy
fh : )_~
I set it to have 2" available stroke and it looks like the mc has about 1.5" So I would set my stop accordingly. It looks like if I targeted the Dodge ratio my stroke would have been short anyway?
Yup, that's possible, the two trucks probably have different swings...
I don't know what the ratio is but a 1/2" in stroke would be close to a couple inches in swing as a guess.
If I knew the total swing at a set distance from the pivot I would be able to calculate exactly how far below the pivot the M/C should be for it's stroke.
For example, 6" down from the pivot there is X travel.
This also can be mocked close enough, It's not the space shuttle.. Or is it???
The longer the swing the easier and smoother the operation, to short and it'll be hard to take off smoothly.
Not bucking ya, just trying to get everything on the table so you can make the best judgment and git'r done good!
In the end it's totally up to you, it's your baby... And yes I am jealous!
Installed the oil pan and then had to remove it.... the 12 point nuts on the rear main cap are hitting the pan! So I'll need to peen this are or shave the nuts down and re-install. The frustrating part of this is that I can't be the only one that has had this problem? You would think that the studs would come with a note "when trial fitting the pan, pay particular attention to the clearance between the nuts on the studs and the rear face of the oil pan. Some clearancing may be needed". Oh well it's just a gasket, some sealant and time....
Oh, and I did check fitment before hand.... just was too focused on the oil pick up tube clearing the sump, I guess?
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
